"the Bible has ZERO open ended commands for either Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers"
I am not attempting to paint moral equivalency, but to highlight where your argument breaks down. No, the Bible does not have any "open-ended commands" for violence (as if that justifies the commands for violence that do exist - but that's another argument for another day...) Yet this lack of "open-ended commands" has not stopped Kevin Swanson or Theodore Shoebat from publicly calling for the murder of gay people. It did not stop Scott Roeder from murdering George Tiller, or Jim David Adkisson from opening fire at children putting on a play. Bible or no, they killed in the name of Jesus. Before you leap to the defense, I am not saying this makes Christianity "equal" to Islam - but we should note that followers of Christ do kill in his name. Do we judge "Christianity" by their actions? Of course not.
Meanwhile, what if the Quran contains such commands? Literal billions of Muslims today (and millions more throughout history) are not running around murdering people, nor do they believe such actions are justified. Why do we judge Islam not based on their actions, but on the actions of a handful of monsters?
Are you going to base your entire opinion on one and half billion people you have never met on a couple of phrases in an old book, rather than on their actions? Is that really what you are saying here?
"Perhaps your time would be better spent reading the Quran, Sira and Hadith."
I'll quote Clancy again:
"Salifist-Takfiri are prolific writers and readers, and they don't cite the Koran, they cite *scholars* of the Koran. Not unlike politicans today are likely to cite founding father and courts are likely to cite court cases.
Indeed trying to understand what's going on in modern Islamic militant fundamentalism by only reading the Koran book is like trying to understand the history of US politics in the 20th Century by only reading the magna carta."
If you still want to think of Islam as somehow innately "evil," I cannot change your mind. But what you should consider is that when we're faced by a threat like ISIS, there is a big difference between saying "1.57 BILLION people are the enemy" and saying "Salafist-Takfiri is the enemy." At the very least, from a military perspective, it is the difference between engaging in endless war without end and spreading ourselves too thin, and going in and actually addressing the people actually committing violence.
"It is. Two houses. You can keep pretending otherwise all you want."
The only people saying that are pundits peddling fear, and ISIS themselves. The people with a lifetime of historical, political, and military experience and expertise in the middle east do not see it that way, and instead frame it quite differently. You have a choice as to which narrative you buy into. I, for one, balk at accepting, without question, the narrative that ISIS wants me to accept. I'd also argue that "I have read the Quran, so I understand everything about Muslim history and politics" is a shallow pool from which to dip.
---
Also, I think you are somehow interpreting my enjoinder against reacting in fear as some kind of call to just sit around and sing "Kum-Ba-Yah" with the terrorists. Far from it. I applaud the actions of the Kurdish fighters taking this war to ISIS directly, and our involvement in supporting these brave people as they try to retake their homelands. Those who have committed murder must be brought to justice, whether it be by the hand of police, or with the fist of military action. But that doesn't mean that actions do not have consequences, and treating all of "Islam" as the enemy (for example: just ignoring collateral damage, or arresting or violating the Constitutional rights of Muslim citizens here) is playing into the real enemy's hands. History has shown how these groups recruit, what they take advantage of. Why should we make their job easier? Are you saying you want an all out war between the west and Islam? "Kill them all, and let God sort them out?"
At some point, we need to learn to be more selective, because unless we learn to work in the realm of realpolitik, we will never solve any of this.
Re: Part 1
I am not attempting to paint moral equivalency, but to highlight where your argument breaks down. No, the Bible does not have any "open-ended commands" for violence (as if that justifies the commands for violence that do exist - but that's another argument for another day...) Yet this lack of "open-ended commands" has not stopped Kevin Swanson or Theodore Shoebat from publicly calling for the murder of gay people. It did not stop Scott Roeder from murdering George Tiller, or Jim David Adkisson from opening fire at children putting on a play. Bible or no, they killed in the name of Jesus. Before you leap to the defense, I am not saying this makes Christianity "equal" to Islam - but we should note that followers of Christ do kill in his name. Do we judge "Christianity" by their actions? Of course not.
Meanwhile, what if the Quran contains such commands? Literal billions of Muslims today (and millions more throughout history) are not running around murdering people, nor do they believe such actions are justified. Why do we judge Islam not based on their actions, but on the actions of a handful of monsters?
Are you going to base your entire opinion on one and half billion people you have never met on a couple of phrases in an old book, rather than on their actions? Is that really what you are saying here?
"Perhaps your time would be better spent reading the Quran, Sira and Hadith."
I'll quote Clancy again:
If you still want to think of Islam as somehow innately "evil," I cannot change your mind. But what you should consider is that when we're faced by a threat like ISIS, there is a big difference between saying "1.57 BILLION people are the enemy" and saying "Salafist-Takfiri is the enemy." At the very least, from a military perspective, it is the difference between engaging in endless war without end and spreading ourselves too thin, and going in and actually addressing the people actually committing violence.
"It is. Two houses. You can keep pretending otherwise all you want."
The only people saying that are pundits peddling fear, and ISIS themselves. The people with a lifetime of historical, political, and military experience and expertise in the middle east do not see it that way, and instead frame it quite differently. You have a choice as to which narrative you buy into. I, for one, balk at accepting, without question, the narrative that ISIS wants me to accept. I'd also argue that "I have read the Quran, so I understand everything about Muslim history and politics" is a shallow pool from which to dip.
---
Also, I think you are somehow interpreting my enjoinder against reacting in fear as some kind of call to just sit around and sing "Kum-Ba-Yah" with the terrorists. Far from it. I applaud the actions of the Kurdish fighters taking this war to ISIS directly, and our involvement in supporting these brave people as they try to retake their homelands. Those who have committed murder must be brought to justice, whether it be by the hand of police, or with the fist of military action. But that doesn't mean that actions do not have consequences, and treating all of "Islam" as the enemy (for example: just ignoring collateral damage, or arresting or violating the Constitutional rights of Muslim citizens here) is playing into the real enemy's hands. History has shown how these groups recruit, what they take advantage of. Why should we make their job easier? Are you saying you want an all out war between the west and Islam? "Kill them all, and let God sort them out?"
At some point, we need to learn to be more selective, because unless we learn to work in the realm of realpolitik, we will never solve any of this.