Support NeoGAF

[Valhelm]

Christianity at least tries to change, to a degree. though it clearly has a hard time doing it.

I think with Islam it literally goes against the religion to change any word of it, doesn't it?

That's really a sectarian thing. Saying that "Christianity tries to change, but Islam does not" is a pretty massive oversimplification, given the enormous amounts of very, very traditional Christian sects. Some groups have succeeded at changing in light of modern social or philosophical developments, but until the modern era, any attempt to change Christian doctrine or worship was met with violence.

Most Muslims do not live their lives in exact accordance to the Qur'an, obviously. I can't tell you if this is because of belief or because of practicality, but given that nearly all non-fundamentalist Muslims live in Muslim countries, I'd reckon it's because most Muslims aren't anywhere near as religious as the Taliban or ISIS. Another major issue is the treatment of the Hadiths. As you probably know, those are a collection of sayings allegedly made by Muhammad in his lifetime. Unlike the Qur'an, the Hadiths weren't written in or immediately after Muhammad's time, and include a lot of mysticism and contradiction that suggest multiple authorship. Most of the more odious prescriptions in Islam (including essentially everything about rape) come from the Hadiths, and various Muslim groups disagree hugely about which Hadiths (if any) should be accepted.

 

[q_q]

I am not a Muslim but saying that it can interpreted that way is not ok. I know you didn't mean offense but it's still not ok.

Why is it not okay? ISIS is correct that the Quran condones raping women captured in war. War prisoners are considered slaves and slave are permitted to be raped, tortured, etc.

 

[Kreed]

Are you saying letting them surrender isn't noble because they shouldn't be going to war with them anyway? What are you trying to say here I'm not following you.

I'm saying you quoting verses where these people had an option not to be raped/captured/murdered by surrendering doesn't make the actions in these verses any less reprehensible/more "acceptable" forms of rape. If you came to my house and told me to give up my home and join your army or be killed and have my wife/kids taken from me, you IMO would either be a murdering rapist or attempted murdering rapist whether I choose to surrender or not.

Again your just mistaken. I quoted your exact verses from the other page which is in reference to THE LISTED NATIONS. There is no part of any verse that describes war conduct with the "approved" nations and then fringe nations. Your making that completely up in your head.

This part of your post:

BUT HOW DO WE KNOW THEY WEREN'T RAPING THE WOMEN?

Is in reference to Deuteronomy chapters 21-23. The verse I quoted you originally was from chapter 20 and it ended with:

But these instructions apply only to distant towns, not to the towns of nations nearby.

Everything from your rules trying to excuse the actions in the verse I quoted has NOTHING to do with what I quoted from that point forward if you actually read the chapters. Which doesn't even matter because none of these "in context" quotes you are throwing at me is excusing how horrible the actions are in my original quote and even the quotes you are using to defend the actions, which have bad actions in them too in present day context. I mean are you even reading these in the context of an ISIS raping women thread or just trying to flex your bible knowledge?

When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails, and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

I don't even know why you are quoting this. This is horrible and if ISIS did this alone without rape it would be fucked up. Taking a woman captive and forcing her to live in your house and mourn her family for a month while you decide to marry her or not is BAD. Not only that but this quote does not say anything about it not being ok to rape her vs treating her like a slave. And your follow up quote had nothing to do with this case UNLESS the woman in this example was pledged to be married (how would she be if you killed her damn husband?)

If your literally thinking the word "town" is in reference to a little town they would come to on their way to the nations your mistaken.
It just means city or capital.

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/20-10.htm

Stop trying to create a narrative in your head that doesn't exist.

And you need to stop making assumptions and try to read more carefully. Let's try this again. THIS is my original quote and the additional quote together from Deuteronomy 20, verses 10-15:

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.

If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.

But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.

When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.

But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

But these instructions apply only to distant towns, not to the towns of nations nearby.

The most important thing I am trying to establish from the beginning is that this is a case where the Bible says it is ok to rape women. You then followed up by quoting verses after this one. But the part that I put in bold means your follow up quotes are not relevant to this quote because the author is saying here that these instructions are for this case only, whereas your "good rules" that you followed up with and I put that in quotations because they aren't good relatively speaking, are not about that case.

Also, to save us both time, please do not quote any more verses unless it explains that the verse I quoted you and the people DIRECTLY reference in the verse (as in the people captured) were not raped. Otherwise we're arguing over interpretations and it's better to move on. This isn't on topic about ISIS raping women and I think we both have better things to do than quoting the Bible.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

The most important thing I am trying to establish from the beginning is that this is a case where the Bible says it is ok to rape women. You then followed up by quoting verses after this one. But the part that I put in bold means your follow up quotes are not relevant to this quote because the author is saying here that these instructions are for this case only, whereas your "good rules" that you followed up with and I put that in quotations because they aren't good relatively speaking, are not about that case.

Also, to save us both time, please do not quote any more verses unless it explains that the verse I quoted you and the people DIRECTLY reference in the verse (as in the people captured) were not raped. Otherwise we're arguing over interpretations and it's better to move on. This isn't on topic about ISIS raping women and I think we both have better things to do than quoting the Bible.

Man your just not getting this here buddy. Nothing in the verse you sent me sanctions rape. There is no rape sanctioning verse. The city's in between the major nations were given a choice to surrender or be destroyed that was the only choice that lay before them. The only reason they were given a choice is because they hadn't been chosen specifically by god to be destroyed because they were pagan nations that had not yet warred against Israel. Because they had not warred against Israel they had a choice. Choosing either didn't mean there would be any rape.

Here is your two scenarios:
1) Isreal approaches the city and offers them terms of peace. They decline peace. Israel goes to war kills all the males and keeps the women and children. If a month after the conquest you want to marry one of the women and she agrees to marry you then you may. That is the only way to copulate with one of the women. If she is not happy with the marriage you have to let her go.

2) Israel approaches the city and they don't surrender. Everyone dies. An account where there is an example of this is in Jericho. The city is given a chance to surrender and doesn't. Rahab who helped smuggle Israelite spies out of the city is sparred along with her family. Joshua 6:23-25 later tells us she marries a man named Solmon who is part of the Messianic line according to the scriptures leading to Jesus.

Your thinking this:

"As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. "

Your thinking that because in this verse woman and children are listed among other items as "Plunder" and that they can USE that plunder means forced rape right? That is you jumping to conclusions and getting all swept up in the translation of that verse. The word in greek for USE is wə·’ā·ḵal·tā which refers to "eating for consumption".

This is how the King James renders that verse:

But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

This is the American Standard:

but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which Jehovah thy God hath given thee.

So look her man I don't want to go around and around with you on this because here is the simple fact. You clearly know nothing about the bible got upset because of how heinous this crime is and so you lashed out at the bible because of a preconceived notion that it condones terrible atrocities. You likely think this because in history it has been used as a scapegoat for horrific crimes - Crusades, Manifest Destiny, ect. That is all completely understandable, but you won't be able to twist any of these verses to support your view because they don't in or even out of context.

 

[RustyNails]

Why is it not okay? ISIS is correct that the Quran condones raping women captured in war. War prisoners are considered slaves and slave are permitted to be raped, tortured, etc.

There is no condoning of raping women in Quran. War prisoners are not allowed to be harmed. Have you ready any posts in this thread showing various hadiths contrary to what you said?

 

[Kreed]

Man your just not getting this here buddy. Nothing in the verse you sent me sanctions rape. There is no rape sanctioning verse. The city's in between the major nations were given a choice to surrender or be destroyed that was the only choice that lay before them. The only reason they were given a choice is because they hadn't been chosen specifically by god to be destroyed because they were pagan nations that had not yet warred against Israel. Because they had not warred against Israel they had a choice. Choosing either didn't mean there would be any rape.

Here is your two scenarios:
1) Isreal approaches the city and offers them terms of peace. They decline peace. Israel goes to war kills all the males and keeps the women and children. If a month after the conquest you want to marry one of the women and she agrees to marry you then you may. That is the only way to copulate with one of the women. If she is not happy with the marriage you have to let her go.

2) Israel approaches the city and they don't surrender. Everyone dies. An account where there is an example of this is in Jericho. The city is given a chance to surrender and doesn't. Rahab who helped smuggle Israelite spies out of the city is sparred along with her family. Joshua 6:23-25 later tells us she marries a man named Solmon who is part of the Messianic line according to the scriptures leading to Jesus.

With your first scenario, the bold in particular, you have not proven that this would/did happen to the people described in my quote. The quotes you provided before were not in reference to this scenario that you yourself have gone through ridiculous lengths to explain as being unique and I have provided evidence that this scenario had separate rules and you have provided nothing to counter this. In addition you're coming up with your own interpretations of the quote you provided. No where in the verse you provided does it say if the woman is unhappy you have to let her go or that she has to agree to marry you. It only talks about the man not being happy and not treating the woman as a slave.

I'm not even going into scenario 2 because you're going into different books, which means different authors and arguably different periods of time and I'm specifically focusing on Deuteronomy.

Your thinking this:

"As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. "

Your thinking that because in this verse woman and children are listed among other items as "Plunder" and that they can USE that plunder means forced rape right? That is you jumping to conclusions and getting all swept up in the translation of that verse. The word in greek for USE is wə·’ā·ḵal·tā which refers to "eating for consumption".

Now let me actually tell you what I'm thinking. You see the word KEEP here?

But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

How about you give me the greek translation for that?

So look her man I don't want to go around and around with you on this because here is the simple fact. You clearly know nothing about the bible got upset because of how heinous this crime is and so you lashed out at the bible because of a preconceived notion that it condones terrible atrocities. You likely think this because in history it has been used as a scapegoat for horrific crimes - Crusades, Manifest Destiny, ect. That is all completely understandable, but you won't be able to twist any of these verses to support your view because they don't in or even out of context.

Mr Last Dragon all I did was provide one quote where the Bible supported rape from a google search for Bible and rape in response to a question that was worded in a way that you were looking for information and I wanted to give you a quick answer. If I really was interested in having this long debate with you and knew you were going to respond with random Bible chapters, at the very least I would have come at you with multiple "better" verses which I know you know are in there. Regardless, you are the one that responded with a failed biblical history lesson no one asked for. That says a lot more than where ever the hell you got that profile on me from.

 

[benjipwns]

You can find historians supporting all sorts of fringe positions. To say Stalin murdered "in the name of atheism" is flat-out wrong, historically speaking. The Nazi Germany part of your quote is even more inaccurate, since the Nazis used a wide array of religious vocabularyand practices, going from christian to pagan and occult.

From:

In fact, they were political religions, with their own rituals, prophets, saints, zealots, inquisitors, traitors, renegades, heretics, apostates, and holy writ.

And that they offered salvation and promised to build Heaven on Earth.

 

[TCRS]

Interview with the author of the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/i...stification-for-rape.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

very interesting.

 

[Prototype]

At what point, at what crime, at what line that needs to be crossed before the world unites to eliminate them?

 

[The Spoony Hou]

Is it really true that according to Islam "he is allowed to rape an unbeliever"?

Of course not. No real religion would ever condone anything like that.

And before anyone freaks out, I'm not saying Islam is not a real religion. I'm saying anyone who uses religion as an excuse to violence is misinterpreting it for his own gains.

 

[Kabouter]

Of course not. No real religion would ever condone anything like that.

And before anyone freaks out, I'm not saying Islam is not a real religion. I'm saying anyone who uses religion as an excuse to violence is misinterpreting it for his own gains.

But that would mean Mohammed was misinterpreting the religion he founded?

 

[chugen]

At what point, at what crime, at what line that needs to be crossed before the world unites to eliminate them?

you cant eliminate them

 

[Osahi]

I posted that article in the Jeb Bush "not a bad deal" thread, but yeah it's definitely thread-worthy.


When have men ever been punished for premarital sex anyway? These rules are there to punish unmarried women for having sex, not men. Men have "needs", after all.


Yikes, that's one scary website.


I fail to see how these even matter. "Be kind to your slaves" is a really low fucking bar when it comes to supreme divine morality, don't you think?


No. How can you free a slave if there is no such thing as a slave? Also, freeing a slave applies to freeing your own slaves, not being a hero freeing other people's slaves or whatever (how dare you touch other people's property, eh).

In the NY Times article it even mentions ISIS sometimes frees their own slaves, and ISIS's own rulebook says it's a virtue. Yet they enslave thousands of women. Does it make sense? No, because ISIS are brainwashed idiots and assholes, but it's hardly shocking that there would be contradictions in their dogma. The Bible is full of contradictions as well.


100% this.


According the link in the OP, they still enslave Jewish and Christian women despite them being "People of the Book". It's just that they need a bit of special pleading to do so, whereas the Yazidi are 100% fair game at all times because, y'know, they're devil worshippers.


And what's stopping him from smiting these evil nations, hmm? He's God. Omnipotent allmighty creator of the universe. He caused the Flood. He can snap his fingers and make things happen, yet now he needs a lowly army of men to get rid of evil people?

How can people not see the blatant flaws in this story and believe this horseshit? Seriously.

It makes way more sense than these stories were made up by believers who thought they had their god on their side and made their own arbitrary rules based on their primitive sense of morality, than god actually laying down those rules. It also explains the large number of contradictions and how pathetically outdated and barbaric these rules are.


Low. Fucking. Bar.


All it helps doing is cementing the fact that scripture is 100% bullshit and completely useless to a modern system of morality.

slowclap.gif

 

[benjipwns]

But that would mean Mohammed was misinterpreting the religion he founded?

Maybe he made a transcription error.

 

[iceatcs]

Horrible. We know that Islam made for men .

 

[spekkeh]

There is no condoning of raping women in Quran. War prisoners are not allowed to be harmed. Have you ready any posts in this thread showing various hadiths contrary to what you said?

I'm confused, should I read the Quran or the hadith? Or given that the thing we read in this thread is that both explicitly condone the keeping of concubines, maybe I should read somebody's fatwa somewhere? And how relevant are fatwas that contradict the hadith? And who says they're prisoners of war in the first place?

 

[Meus Renaissance]

The issue is not whether such behaviours are genuine reflections of scripture, but rather a practice done to others. It should be considered a universally deplorable act; it is inhumane to its very nature. But the telling thing is you can have debates about the permissibility of slaves in Islam. Actual debates; points and counter points, which underlines the fundamental issue; there is theological justification for this according to some and you wouldn't need to look far to find them. ISIS don't strike me as a group of devout men motivated but scriptural accuracy as they are by lust and power. Nevertheless, there is currently space in the Islamic world for which these beliefs exist. And of course, there will be some who not only have it as a belief but are willing to act upon it.

Do rapes occur in warzones? Yes. The question is: how did it dawn upon this man to invoke God - sincerely or not - in justifying his acts? Where did that mindset come from? Thats the issue.

 

[Always-honest]

Mindboggling. Why would you want to do that? Against someone's will?
People are so afraid of freedom, equality, peace, it seems.

 

[Hackworth]

I can't even wrap my head around this line of thinking. Not your post, just that people actually would join for those reasons.

Honestly I'm surprised Roosh V hasn't joined yet, it sounds like his kind of party.

 

[Messofanego]

Thanks to New York Times for uncovering this. Absolutely horrifying.

 

[The Spoony Hou]

But that would mean Mohammed was misinterpreting the religion he founded?

I don't know if Mohammed was a violent man, or what he did, but that's the past. The world of today is moving towards peaceful solutions and understanding.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

With your first scenario, the bold in particular, you have not proven that this would/did happen to the people described in my quote. The quotes you provided before were not in reference to this scenario that you yourself have gone through ridiculous lengths to explain as being unique and I have provided evidence that this scenario had separate rules and you have provided nothing to counter this. In addition you're coming up with your own interpretations of the quote you provided. No where in the verse you provided does it say if the woman is unhappy you have to let her go or that she has to agree to marry you. It only talks about the man not being happy and not treating the woman as a slave.

I'm not even going into scenario 2 because you're going into different books, which means different authors and arguably different periods of time and I'm specifically focusing on Deuteronomy.



Now let me actually tell you what I'm thinking. You see the word KEEP here?



How about you give me the greek translation for that?



Mr Last Dragon all I did was provide one quote where the Bible supported rape from a google search for Bible and rape in response to a question that was worded in a way that you were looking for information and I wanted to give you a quick answer. If I really was interested in having this long debate with you and knew you were going to respond with random Bible chapters, at the very least I would have come at you with multiple "better" verses which I know you know are in there. Regardless, you are the one that responded with a failed biblical history lesson no one asked for. That says a lot more than where ever the hell you got that profile on me from.

The fact that you don't even know that multiple books are written by the same author and in the same time period shows your just ill-equipped to deal with any rational conversation on this. You just don't have the knowledge or the patience to educate yourself. The funny thing is if you had taken even a basic core humanity class you would know how outlandish any of your claims are. Nothing you are citing is even stuff published critics have issue with the bible. Have fun shaping your world by using Google though seems to be going quite well.

 

[The Chef]

What a depressing way to start my morning so awful.

With your first scenario, the bold in particular, you have not proven that this would/did happen to the people described in my quote. The quotes you provided before were not in reference to this scenario that you yourself have gone through ridiculous lengths to explain as being unique and I have provided evidence that this scenario had separate rules and you have provided nothing to counter this. In addition you're coming up with your own interpretations of the quote you provided. No where in the verse you provided does it say if the woman is unhappy you have to let her go or that she has to agree to marry you. It only talks about the man not being happy and not treating the woman as a slave.

I'm not even going into scenario 2 because you're going into different books, which means different authors and arguably different periods of time and I'm specifically focusing on Deuteronomy.



Now let me actually tell you what I'm thinking. You see the word KEEP here?



How about you give me the greek translation for that?



Mr Last Dragon all I did was provide one quote where the Bible supported rape from a google search for Bible and rape in response to a question that was worded in a way that you were looking for information and I wanted to give you a quick answer. If I really was interested in having this long debate with you and knew you were going to respond with random Bible chapters, at the very least I would have come at you with multiple "better" verses which I know you know are in there. Regardless, you are the one that responded with a failed biblical history lesson no one asked for. That says a lot more than where ever the hell you got that profile on me from.

I'm just a bystander here but I have to say looking between your two conversations it really seems like your just trying to create this idea. All the evidence you provided was addressed by him and now your just arguing the semantics of one word because thats the one thing your holding on to. I don't know anything about the bible though.

 

[Evazan]

Yup my same reaction. Its the kind of thing that makes you want to jump on a plane.

I'm saying you quoting verses where these people had an option not to be raped/captured/murdered by surrendering doesn't make the actions in these verses any less reprehensible/more "acceptable" forms of rape. If you came to my house and told me to give up my home and join your army or be killed and have my wife/kids taken from me, you IMO would either be a murdering rapist or attempted murdering rapist whether I choose to surrender or not.





This part of your post:



Is in reference to Deuteronomy chapters 21-23. The verse I quoted you originally was from chapter 20 and it ended with:



Everything from your rules trying to excuse the actions in the verse I quoted has NOTHING to do with what I quoted from that point forward if you actually read the chapters. Which doesn't even matter because none of these "in context" quotes you are throwing at me is excusing how horrible the actions are in my original quote and even the quotes you are using to defend the actions, which have bad actions in them too in present day context. I mean are you even reading these in the context of an ISIS raping women thread or just trying to flex your bible knowledge?



I don't even know why you are quoting this. This is horrible and if ISIS did this alone without rape it would be fucked up. Taking a woman captive and forcing her to live in your house and mourn her family for a month while you decide to marry her or not is BAD. Not only that but this quote does not say anything about it not being ok to rape her vs treating her like a slave. And your follow up quote had nothing to do with this case UNLESS the woman in this example was pledged to be married (how would she be if you killed her damn husband?)



And you need to stop making assumptions and try to read more carefully. Let's try this again. THIS is my original quote and the additional quote together from Deuteronomy 20, verses 10-15:



The most important thing I am trying to establish from the beginning is that this is a case where the Bible says it is ok to rape women. You then followed up by quoting verses after this one. But the part that I put in bold means your follow up quotes are not relevant to this quote because the author is saying here that these instructions are for this case only, whereas your "good rules" that you followed up with and I put that in quotations because they aren't good relatively speaking, are not about that case.

Also, to save us both time, please do not quote any more verses unless it explains that the verse I quoted you and the people DIRECTLY reference in the verse (as in the people captured) were not raped. Otherwise we're arguing over interpretations and it's better to move on. This isn't on topic about ISIS raping women and I think we both have better things to do than quoting the Bible.

I hate to pile on but it really seems like you don't know what your talking about. Bruce just keeps sending you different scriptures and your hell bent on making this fit your view. Whats funny is I think most of the stuff in that book is rubbish ha. Even then your not showing that rape was acceptable

 

[StayDead]

Wtf, there's no way you can justify rape with your religion. That is such utter bullshit.

You can justify anything with anything if you try hard enough. You eventually start to believe your own bullshit.

 

[Replicant]

Fucking disgusting animal.

I'm done with religion too. Especially the ones that condone this kind of barbaric act.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

The fact that you don't even know that multiple books are written by the same author and in the same time period shows your just ill-equipped to deal with any rational conversation on this. You just don't have the knowledge or the patience to educate yourself. The funny thing is if you had taken even a basic core humanity class you would know how outlandish any of your claims are. Nothing you are citing is even stuff published critics have issue with the bible. Have fun shaping your world by using Google though seems to be going quite well.

Wait, are claiming that the Pentateuch was actually written by a single author (Moses)? If so, you would be at odds with the majority of Old Testament scholars.

 

[Messofanego]

The issue is not whether such behaviours are genuine reflections of scripture, but rather a practice done to others. It should be considered a universally deplorable act; it is inhumane to its very nature. But the telling thing is you can have debates about the permissibility of slaves in Islam. Actual debates; points and counter points, which underlines the fundamental issue; there is theological justification for this according to some and you wouldn't need to look far to find them. ISIS don't strike me as a group of devout men motivated but scriptural accuracy as they are by lust and power. Nevertheless, there is currently space in the Islamic world for which these beliefs exist. And of course, there will be some who not only have it as a belief but are willing to act upon it.

Do rapes occur in warzones? Yes. The question is: how did it dawn upon this man to invoke God - sincerely or not - in justifying his acts? Where did that mindset come from? Thats the issue.

Just like American owners used the Bible for black slaves. These people operate in a 'wild west' environment where there's little consequence so if they encounter women, they think of the most heinous acts to accomplish. Psychology experiments like the Stanford prison sought to explain how the environment can turn people to do such things. In such an environment you can effectively dehumanise humans systematically like here with "sabaya no1, no2" to a point where you feel no remorse for your transgressions. Like how the Japanese army did to Chinese and others with the Unit 731 biochemical experiments, and given immunity by USA. Abu Ghraib, and many others. I'm sure all these tragedies started with humans justifying their behaviour through whatever text they can find or make up or twist and avoid thr cognitive dissonance might actually lead them to feel remorse. Joshua Oppenheimer's docus like The Act Of Killing and The Look Of Silence cover this aspect of how these people can go about it. Some of the killers, because enough time has past, feel remorse when looking back at it from a more questioning retrospective.

I'm sure there will be documentaries where ex-ISIS open up, or there already have been.

 

[Portugeezer]

They gotta come up with an excuse to not feel bad about raping children. God? Yeah ok.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Wait, are claiming that the Pentateuch was actually written by a single author (Moses)? If so, you would be at odds with the majority of Old Testament scholars.

Did I say the Pentateuch? No man obviously not. A lot of them were written almost a 100 years after Moses

 

[Missile Defense]

When I read stuff like this its the only time I advocate ground troops.

The trouble I have is knowing that if we do send our soldiers it will be with the knowledge that they wont be allowed to do the job well because of our own politics. All I see is a no win situation.

I think we might need to straight up annex these nations as the ultimate resolution.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Did I say the Pentateuch? No man obviously not. A lot of them were written almost a 100 years after Moses

What was the claim then?

What would you say about Lot offering up his daughters to the mob yet he is still considered a righteous man by God, is that biblical approval? Interested in your take?

 

[AlucardGV]

I don't know if Mohammed was a violent man, or what he did, but that's the past. The world of today is moving towards peaceful solutions and understanding.

sure isn't him like "the man closer to god" for muslim and to be inspired by him?

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Fuck ISIS

 

[Baki]

The god of the Qur'an really, really doesn't like disbelievers and has a myriad of specific plans for their eternal torment in hell.

Specifically while they live, though, disbelievers should be sought out and killed until only Muslims remain (1), and treated harshly in general since they're going to hell anyway (2), and god will make them humiliated in life (3). Also, don't bother feeling any sort of mercy for them because god designed them to be disbelievers in the first place (4), and they're minions of the devil (5).




All up to interpretation, of course.

The problem with cherry picked quotes (translated from Arabic to English) is that it completely neglects the context of the message. The Quran is essentially a series of revelation over a 23 year period. That first quote was revealed before the beginning of a battle against a much better equipped army intent on wiping out the early Muslims. This same army had been systematically hunting and killing individual Muslims, until it came to a boiling point and the Muslims had to defend themselves. Im not going to go through all the quotes - but I would recommend you do so, especially if you are using the quotes as a way to justify a certain position that you have.

In terms of fundamental principles of Islam, this Hadith is core:

Anas relates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “None of you truly believes until he loves for his fellow human being what he loves for himself.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

This is one of the first thing Muslims are taught and a core principle.

Now regarding slavery, it was a practice that existed before and during Islam began. It was a horrific practice that was core to the economy at the time. Islam began introducing laws to stop abuse of slaves and limit the creation of new slaves (e.g stopped practice of being born into slavery, capturing people and turning them into slaves) and elevating them to a status equivalent to normal people.

A lot of people wonder why it wasn't outright banned - but this is because people have the impression that Islam was a set of rules that was just revealed and then people were expected to immediately adhere to. The rules were introduced over a period of time to slowly change a barbaric society into a more civilised one. Therefore, slavery was a practice that had to be eradicated through a number of heavy regulations rather than an outright ban due to state of society of the time. It's also important that all the regulations were designed to stop abuse of slaves and significantly incentivise freeing slaves.

Now regarding the ISIS trash - if they wanted to adhere to religion - they would look at the Hadith above and realise that what they are doing is utterly contradictory to what a Muslim is. This is amongst several other religious violations they are guilty of.

The leader of ISIS is a cunning Bastard who is using the dark desires of these men to motivate them begind the cause. I suspect they all know what they are doing is fucked up - but want to use bullshit to pretend that it isn't.

I hope for a day when the UN authorises an on the ground operation to wipe ISIS off the map.

 

[Baki]

I'm just gonna re-post what I already posted in another thread.

On Slavery


Islam did not initiate slavery but did permit it. It was already a common practice in 7th Century Arabia and was deeply embedded practice in society. From my perspective, at least, Islam addressed a lot of societal issues through gradual elimination rather than an outright ban (e.g. alcohol).

Anyway, the end goal seems to be the elimination of slavery.

Firstly, the legality of slavery today (from the BBC):


On Treatment of Slaves:




On Slaves requesting freedom:



Freeing Slaves:








On Racism:


It's clear from multiple instances that this practice was already embedded in society and not something Islam introduced into society. The goal was to eventually eradicate it with multiple sources suggesting "equality of slaves," "good treatment of slaves," and eventual "freedom of slaves" as expiation for sins.

This is a pretty good post that should address most questions.

 

[Kenshin001]

The problem with cherry picked quotes (translated from Arabic to English) is that it completely neglects the context of the message. The Quran is essentially a series of revelation over a 23 year period. That first quote was revealed before the beginning of a battle against a much better equipped army intent on wiping out the early Muslims. This same army had been systematically hunting and killing individual Muslims, until it came to a boiling point and the Muslims had to defend themselves. Im not going to go through all the quotes - but I would recommend you do so, especially if you are using the quotes as a way to justify a certain position that you have.

In terms of fundamental principles of Islam, this Hadith is core:



This is one of the first thing Muslims are taught and a core principle.

Now regarding slavery, it was a practice that existed before and during Islam began. It was a horrific practice that was core to the economy at the time. Islam began introducing laws to stop abuse of slaves and limit the creation of new slaves (e.g stopped practice of being born into slavery, capturing people and turning them into slaves) and elevating them to a status equivalent to normal people.

A lot of people wonder why it wasn't outright banned - but this is because people have the impression that Islam was a set of rules that was just revealed and then people were expected to immediately adhere to. The rules were introduced over a period of time to slowly change a barbaric society into a more civilised one. Therefore, slavery was a practice that had to be eradicated through a number of heavy regulations rather than an outright ban due to state of society of the time. It's also important that all the regulations were designed to stop abuse of slaves and significantly incentivise freeing slaves.

Now regarding the ISIS trash - if they wanted to adhere to religion - they would look at the Hadith above and realise that what they are doing is utterly contradictory to what a Muslim is. This is amongst several other religious violations they are guilty of.

The leader of ISIS is a cunning Bastard who is using the dark desires of these men to motivate them begind the cause. I suspect they all know what they are doing is fucked up - but want to use bullshit to pretend that it isn't.

I hope for a day when the UN authorises an on the ground operation to wipe ISIS off the map.

So all those Muslims were ignoring that hadith the whole time they kept slaves. If that is a core principle of Islam, basically do unto others as they would do unto you if I understand it right, I would have though no-one would keep slaves.

 

[Kreed]

The fact that you don't even know that multiple books are written by the same author and in the same time period shows your just ill-equipped to deal with any rational conversation on this. You just don't have the knowledge or the patience to educate yourself. The funny thing is if you had taken even a basic core humanity class you would know how outlandish any of your claims are. Nothing you are citing is even stuff published critics have issue with the bible. Have fun shaping your world by using Google though seems to be going quite well.

Despite your profile creation, in reality I think that the opposite is going on here based on the bold sentence (hell you can Wikipedia this part/you don't need a class for this one), but I'm glad we've agreed to disagree.

I'm just a bystander here but I have to say looking between your two conversations it really seems like your just trying to create this idea. All the evidence you provided was addressed by him and now your just arguing the semantics of one word because thats the one thing your holding on to. I don't know anything about the bible though.

I hate to pile on but it really seems like you don't know what your talking about. Bruce just keeps sending you different scriptures and your hell bent on making this fit your view. Whats funny is I think most of the stuff in that book is rubbish ha. Even then your not showing that rape was acceptable

If Bruce had provided quotes that proved my quote wrong I would have conceded and provided different ones (Deuteronomy, Exodus, and Judges for example) and gone from there. But nothing Bruce provided says enough against rape/to flat out say rape wasn't allowed under any circumstances back then, particularly in the one quote which was my focus because I wasn't interested in a long debate. Even these quotes Bruce provided for example:

When you are encamped against your enemies, keep away from everything impure. If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the camp and stay there.

When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails, and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor.

Their little children will be dashed to death before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked, and their wives will be raped.

...have conditions to them if you read them carefully. In the first verse Bruce himself said the men were prohibited from having sex and they voluntarily avoided it. It doesn't say anything about rape being bad or punishable. In the second verse it describes what is done with women captives but it doesn't say anything about the woman having a choice on leaving or if the man can or can not force himself upon her. And in the third verse a young woman pledged to be married who is raped is punishable. What about women not pledged to be married since you've taken them captive? And in the fourth, which as Bruce says:

God tells the Israelites that if they don't worship him and instead worship gods of the other nations and commit child sacrafice that he will not protect them when they go to war and there will be a profound difference between their warfare when god is with them and when he is not.

He's describing horrible acts that will happen to Israelites who are not "true believers". And even then it talks about wives being raped being bad. But what about women who are virgins/unmarried/husbands were killed? It's what's not being said that says the most to people following these books to the letter in the quote I provided and the quotes Bruce provided and that's not good enough when dealing with quotes like what I provided, among others verses in there.

 

[The Chef]

Despite your profile creation, in reality I think that the opposite is going on here based on the bold sentence (hell you can Wikipedia this part/you don't need a class for this one), but I'm glad we've agreed to disagree.





If Bruce had provided quotes that proved my quote wrong I would have conceded and provided different ones (Deuteronomy, Exodus, and Judges for example) and gone from there. But nothing Bruce provided says enough against rape/to flat out say rape wasn't allowed under any circumstances back then, particularly in the one quote which was my focus because I wasn't interested in a long debate. Even these quotes Bruce provided for example:









...have conditions to them if you read them carefully. In the first verse Bruce himself said the men were prohibited from having sex and they voluntarily avoided it. It doesn't say anything about rape being bad or punishable. In the second verse it describes what is done with women captives but it doesn't say anything about the woman having a choice on leaving or if the man can or can not force himself upon her. And in the third verse a young woman pledged to be married who is raped is punishable. What about women not pledged to be married since you've taken them captive? And in the fourth, which as Bruce says:



He's describing horrible acts that will happen to Israelites who are not "true believers". And even then it talks about wives being raped being bad. But what about women who are virgins/unmarried/husbands were killed? It's what's not being said that says the most to people following these books to the letter in the quote I provided and the quotes Bruce provided and that's not good enough when dealing with quotes like what I provided, among others verses in there.

What does his join date have to do with anything? I think I'm understanding why you guys aren't seeing eye to eye I'm pretty confused following your logic. Basically your saying that even though the bible never said anything about rape and Brice showed it actually condemned it that because it has this shady "keep" your assuming rape is happening. It just sounds like your creating this with no substance.

 

[Kreed]

What does his join date have to do with anything? I think I'm understanding why you guys aren't seeing eye to eye I'm pretty confused following your logic. Basically your saying that even though the bible never said anything about rape and Brice showed it actually condemned it that because it has this shady "keep" your assuming rape is happening. It just sounds like your creating this with no substance.

I'm not talking about his GAF profile. He's been trying to create a profile about ME as a person without me actually saying anything about my background. From his very first response he has been questioning my education, my motivations, etc... all from me providing him a quote and no other details about myself.

Second, I'm not saying the Bible never said anything about rape. Bruce's quotes prove that there's plenty in the Bible about rape. I'm just saying my original quote doesn't have the word rape in it or describe what exactly happened to these women, but you, like Bruce himself did, can deduce that a woman taken captive isn't going to be taken to the nail salon.

Here's another quote for example from Deuteronomy explaining the punishments for rape that illustrate the many issues with the idea that the Bible looks down on rape in all instances:

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

http://www.allaboutgod.com/truth/deuteronomy-22.htm

Now here, the rape is being "punished" by forcing the rapist to pay the father money for the daughter, and then the rapist must marry the victim. The victim has no choice in whether she wants to marry her rapist or not and the rapist just got himself a wife.

Bruce is right that you're never going to find a quote in the bible where it says "Rape all the women you want", but taking this back to the original topic, that's not what ISIS is doing in the OP either. The women they are raping are prisoners/people who aren't following true Islam according to them. Books like the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran either have no defense or weak defenses for them and outright describe situations where these actions can be deemed "acceptable rape".

 

[Duji]

But that would mean Mohammed was misinterpreting the religion he founded?

Gonna to have to add that one to the armory.

Now regarding slavery, it was a practice that existed before and during Islam began. It was a horrific practice that was core to the economy at the time. Islam began introducing laws to stop abuse of slaves and limit the creation of new slaves (e.g stopped practice of being born into slavery, capturing people and turning them into slaves) and elevating them to a status equivalent to normal people.

A lot of people wonder why it wasn't outright banned - but this is because people have the impression that Islam was a set of rules that was just revealed and then people were expected to immediately adhere to. The rules were introduced over a period of time to slowly change a barbaric society into a more civilised one. Therefore, slavery was a practice that had to be eradicated through a number of heavy regulations rather than an outright ban due to state of society of the time. It's also important that all the regulations were designed to stop abuse of slaves and significantly incentivise freeing slaves.

Now regarding the ISIS trash - if they wanted to adhere to religion - they would look at the Hadith above and realise that what they are doing is utterly contradictory to what a Muslim is. This is amongst several other religious violations they are guilty of.

The whole "Islam's ultimate goal was to slowly eradicate slavery" is a crock of shit. Allah/Muhammad never said the goal was to rid the world of slavery, and history tells the complete opposite story.

It took Islam over a thousand years to actually make some serious effort in abolishing slavery, and most of it was done during the past century because of pressure from the "evil Western colonial powers." There was no grassroots movement within the Islamic world to rid the world of slavery. Look at the last dozen or so countries to abolish slavery... almost all of them are Muslim countries. And we're only talking about the past 70 or so years. Now we have ISIS carrying on the legacy.

At the end of the day, slavery -- in principle -- is not a sin in Islam.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

I'm not talking about his GAF profile. He's been trying to create a profile about ME as a person without me actually saying anything about my background. From his very first response he has been questioning my education, my motivations, etc... all from me providing him a quote and no other details about myself.

Second, I'm not saying the Bible never said anything about rape. Bruce's quotes prove that there's plenty in the Bible about rape. I'm just saying my original quote doesn't have the word rape in it or describe what exactly happened to these women, but you, like Bruce himself did, can deduce that a woman taken captive isn't going to be taken to the nail salon.

Here's another quote for example from Deuteronomy explaining the punishments for rape that illustrate the many issues with the idea that the Bible looks down on rape in all instances:



http://www.allaboutgod.com/truth/deuteronomy-22.htm

Now here, the rape is being "punished" by forcing the rapist to pay the father money for the daughter, and then the rapist must marry the victim. The victim has no choice in whether she wants to marry her rapist or not and the rapist just got himself a wife.

Bruce is right that you're never going to find a quote in the bible where it says "Rape all the women you want", but taking this back to the original topic, that's not what ISIS is doing in the OP either. The women they are raping are prisoners/people who aren't following true Islam according to them. Books like the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran either have no defense or weak defenses for them and outright describe situations where these actions can be deemed "acceptable rape".

This is the last all reply to you about it. You told me you googled the information and based on what you said about the bible showed you had no basic education on it. That's completely fine who really cares but your trying to assert an opinion that isn't based on anything cause you have no foundation. For instance and this is basic understanding to anyone that took a core humanity class where they breakdown the bible. Your quoting one translation there in Deut. Yes it sounds like the bible is indeed condoning rape so what are we to do. Well if you understood how the bible was translated you would go to the original source document that all these translations come from and see what is the actual transliterated word. Bible hub.com is a great resource as it will show you every translation plus the original language source. On that scripture the interliner(which is the literal Hebrew transliterated) is "Lay Hold" you can see that here. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/22-28.htm
Some old translations listed it as rape but all the new ones do not. They know it's not rape because at 22:25 when it's talking about literal rape the word is different than 28. It means "To Force". That's why all new translations don't render it that way. Here is how Gils(noted scholar and bible critic) explains it:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,.... That is, meets with one in a field, which is not espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to be an unmarried man, as appears by what follows:

and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deuteronomy 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; and this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her.

So that argument is gone. I hope you understand why it makes no sense for me to keep talking with you about it. If you want to have an opinion that isn't based on any real understanding that's fine everyone does that. But what's interesting is you twisting these things to support your narrative is in fact exactly what these radicals are doing with the Quran. Twisting it to support their view. I think we can both agree that making life descions that involve belief systems with no foundation is dangerous no? I'm of course not implying you are anything remotely like these disgusting people. Merely that it's easy to make any belief system feel supported without any education on it. That's how manifest destiny was able to spread and the crusades because the common people had no idea the things the priests told them had no biblical basis.

 

[The_Hitcher89]

They seem determined to be the worst people possible, utterly bizarre that an organisation like that can grow so large without being crushed before it gets the chance to become well known enough to attract such psychopaths from far and wide.

There will be studies for decades about the psychology behind and within ISIS. As a sane person, its impossible for me to empathise with them in the slightest.

 

[Kreed]

This is the last all reply to you about it. You told me you googled the information and based on what you said about the bible showed you had no basic education on it. That's completely fine who really cares but your trying to assert an opinion that isn't based on anything cause you have no foundation. For instance and this is basic understanding to anyone that took a core humanity class where they breakdown the bible. Your quoting one translation there in Deut. Yes it sounds like the bible is indeed condoning rape so what are we to do. Well if you understood how the bible was translated you would go to the original source document that all these translations come from and see what is the actual transliterated word. Bible hub.com is a great resource as it will show you every translation plus the original language source. On that scripture the interliner(which is the literal Hebrew transliterated) is "Lay Hold" you can see that here. http://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/22-28.htm
Some old translations listed it as rape but all the new ones do not. They know it's not rape because at 22:25 when it's talking about literal rape the word is different than 28. It means "To Force". That's why all new translations don't render it that way. Here is how Gils(noted scholar and bible critic) explains it:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,.... That is, meets with one in a field, which is not espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to be an unmarried man, as appears by what follows:

and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deuteronomy 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; and this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her.

So that argument is gone. I hope you understand why it makes no sense for me to keep talking with you about it. If you want to have an opinion that isn't based on any real understanding that's fine everyone does that. But what's interesting is you twisting these things to support your narrative is in fact exactly what these radicals are doing with the Quran. Twisting it to support their view. I think we can both agree that making life descions that involve belief systems with no foundation is dangerous no? I'm of course not implying you are anything remotely like these disgusting people. Merely that it's easy to make any belief system feel supported without any education on it. That's how manifest destiny was able to spread and the crusades because the common people had no idea the things the priests told them had no biblical basis.

To keep this topic moving in a better/more constructive direction, I'm going to move on here and concede this argument to you. I will say that I like this approach to my new quote better than your previous response minus the "profile building" and I do agree it's always better to be fully educated on a book you're worshiping/using as a foundation.

 

[dabig2]

spiel

Since you said it's your last reply, then that's fine. I probably won't respond in this thread either. This is purely for the lurkers. But yes, Hebrew context does matter. Language is powerful. You would think a supreme being and divine creator of the billions of lightyears of galaxies, gas, and planets would understand that beforehand, but what we have is what we got. 2000+ year old ancient stories written hundreds of years after their events that are open to 1000 different interpretations.

Going on, your example of true contextual language is full of holes. Your main point here is that the 2 scenarios are different also in terms of the action being dealt to the woman. The verbs used are different, yes, but the situation is still concerning rape. You focus on 1 word being slightly different and I do find it interesting how that's apparently the only use of the Hebrew word in the bible, but look at the following verse in Deut 29, which is continuing the story.. He has to pay and do all this crap because he "humbled" her. He violated her, and every context of that word used in the Bible points to, as we define it in a more civilized society - rape. It's a negative action in every context and it's negative because of what has been done to the victim.

Not to mention I want you to consider your belief that this verse is merely pointing to consensual sex between a man and a virgin. I mean, you want me to believe that in Deut 22 with all its guidelines and such and what we know about Hebrew culture back then, that we have a verse that condones consensual sex as long as the virgin isn't married? I mean, that places the Bible ahead of its time, I guess, that at least in this scenario the couple aren't murdered. I would wish that to be true, but there are so many other instances beyond this simple debate that occam's razor at some point just says "yeah, no, it was talking about rape like all the other verses were".

 

[EviLore]

The problem with cherry picked quotes (translated from Arabic to English) is that it completely neglects the context of the message. The Quran is essentially a series of revelation over a 23 year period. That first quote was revealed before the beginning of a battle against a much better equipped army intent on wiping out the early Muslims. This same army had been systematically hunting and killing individual Muslims, until it came to a boiling point and the Muslims had to defend themselves. Im not going to go through all the quotes - but I would recommend you do so, especially if you are using the quotes as a way to justify a certain position that you have.

In terms of fundamental principles of Islam, this Hadith is core:



This is one of the first thing Muslims are taught and a core principle.

Now regarding slavery, it was a practice that existed before and during Islam began. It was a horrific practice that was core to the economy at the time. Islam began introducing laws to stop abuse of slaves and limit the creation of new slaves (e.g stopped practice of being born into slavery, capturing people and turning them into slaves) and elevating them to a status equivalent to normal people.

A lot of people wonder why it wasn't outright banned - but this is because people have the impression that Islam was a set of rules that was just revealed and then people were expected to immediately adhere to. The rules were introduced over a period of time to slowly change a barbaric society into a more civilised one. Therefore, slavery was a practice that had to be eradicated through a number of heavy regulations rather than an outright ban due to state of society of the time. It's also important that all the regulations were designed to stop abuse of slaves and significantly incentivise freeing slaves.

Now regarding the ISIS trash - if they wanted to adhere to religion - they would look at the Hadith above and realise that what they are doing is utterly contradictory to what a Muslim is. This is amongst several other religious violations they are guilty of.

The leader of ISIS is a cunning Bastard who is using the dark desires of these men to motivate them begind the cause. I suspect they all know what they are doing is fucked up - but want to use bullshit to pretend that it isn't.

I hope for a day when the UN authorises an on the ground operation to wipe ISIS off the map.

Yes, my list of clear, direct quotes from the Qur'an clearly holds no relevance in addressing how ISIS fundamentalists are able to readily justify their atrocities in the name of god with a straight face, because we actually need this additional context from 1400 years ago. For reasons.

 

[speculawyer]

I am not a Muslim but saying that it can interpreted that way is not ok. I know you didn't mean offense but it's still not ok.

It apparently was fine in his version of Islam. Stating facts is no longer acceptable?

If we are getting to the point where we can't state true facts (albeit ugly facts) then we are in terrible space. You can't address a problem if you can't even talk about it.

 

[Duji]

Yes, my list of clear, direct quotes from the Qur'an clearly holds no relevance in addressing how ISIS fundamentalists are able to readily justify their atrocities in the name of god with a straight face, because we actually need this additional context from 1400 years ago. For reasons.

It all can get very confusing. One minute Muslims will say the Quran is an "instruction manual for life" and as soon as you start reading it like an instruction manual, all of the imperative sentences that use verbs like "slay" and "kill" really start to stick out in a bad way... and then you're told that "no no no, this was just God addressing specific people at a specific time, and you need to understand the historical context of 7th century Arabia." What a waste of time.

 

[TouchMyBox]

How far out are we from colonizing mars again?

 

[Chairman Yang]

ISIS members and sympathizers are often aware of the additional context posted in this thread and they don't seem too disturbed by it.

Perhaps this context isn't that clear, unambiguous, and compelling. Perhaps other context (like Muhammad's actual historical behaviour) outweighs it. Perhaps all ideologies are not exactly equal in their effects on human behaviour, and perhaps Islam might be more easily and more commonly interpreted to promote evil actions than, say, environmentalism or Buddhism or vegetarianism. Perhaps the existence of ecoterrorism, Buddhist persecution of Burmese Muslims, and vegetarian Hitler aren't good evidence that all beliefs cause all behaviours to precisely the same degree. Perhaps ISIS (and other similar movements such as Boko Haram) are related to Islam, even if there are other additional causes.