Isis vs. klal yisrael

Home Forums In The News Isis vs. klal yisrael

Viewing 49 posts - 1 through 49 (of 49 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #613555
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    I’m sorry to be disingenuous over here, but how is isis any different than we used to be in the conquest of eretz yisrael? their choice is war, leave, or pay a tax, isnt that what we used to do? also they have beis dinim for sharia law

    #1030349
    Randomex
    Member

    Is that so? ISIS gives everyone a choice of becoming a tributary, leaving, or facing battle? That’s not the impression I’d gotten.

    In the original conquest of Eretz Yisrael, led by Yehoshua bin Nun,

    we were commanded NOT to give anyone choices, but to wipe them out.

    ISIS intends to conquer areas and impose their own law on them, not

    to entirely destroy the native populations and replace them.

    #1030350

    Are you talking about the times of Yehoshuah?

    #1030351
    Joseph
    Participant

    We did what Hashem told us to and wanted us to do. They, of course, do not. They do the precise opposite, in fact. And if that is the only difference (though there are very many differences in what and how isis does and practices and behaves than what we did unlike your suggesting otherwise) then that reason alone would more than suffice. Even if they claim they are doing G-d’s work they are not, only we are, and we can disregard their claims of doing what G-d wants. Even if we cannot prove all this when arguing with non Orthodox Jews, we know it’s true. And the truth is all that matter whether or not we can defend the position we know is true.

    #1030352
    Sam2
    Participant

    Because we did it Al Pi a direct Tzava’ah from Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We would not do the same nowadays.

    #1030353
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    sam2 (and possibly by extension lior)

    but they understandd their caliphate as doing their god’s will because it mentions the caliphate

    how is theirs not a direct tzavah

    #1030354

    You are basically saying that whatever someone believes is fine as long as they really believe it is true. Muslims believing they got a command from Hashem is NOT the same as Bnei Yisrael actually getting a command from Hashem. Judaism and Islam are not comparable. They are not two religions. Judaism is the truth, Islam is a man-made religion and perversion of the truth.We are responsible for and judged for what we believe. The Muslims will be judged for believing in a prophet that doesn’t take much to disprove. They will be held responsible and they will be judged for killing in the name of that prophet.

    (As an aside, Hashem gave us an inborn sense of morality for a reason. It’s supposed to lead us to the recognition of the truth.)

    In general we are not allowed to kill etc. However if Hashem tells us to, we must – and if I remember correctly, the people fighting were given a promise that if they are doing so only because Hashem said so, it will not numb their midah of rachmanus.)

    #1030355
    Sam2
    Participant

    ca: They have a religious mandate to take over the world spiritually. They are choosing to interpret that via violent and brutal war. We had a direct command to destroy 7 nations.

    Lior: Your argument doesn’t work because it could have been the exact same if written by an ISIS person.

    #1030356
    Joseph
    Participant

    They understand wrong. They are following a false religion. They are falsely claiming to be doing G-d’s will. We are correctly claiming to be following G-d’s will. Whether or not we can or can’t prove that is irrelevant. It is the truth.

    #1030357
    000646
    Participant

    It’s not that different. The main difference is that we stopped doing that sort of thing about 3000 years ago.

    #1030358
    Joseph
    Participant

    Sam: I specifically said it is irrelevant if my “argument” is winnable in a debate. A neutral observer who is neither Jewish nor Muslim may indeed judge our arguments to be the same and that neither is objectively more valid than the other. But that is completely irrelevant because we have the Emes on our side whether anyone else knows it or not and whether we can prove it or not. We know it is the 100% truth and that’s all that matters on this point.

    #1030359
    000646
    Participant

    The facts are a state run according us 3000 years ago would not look that different then IS looks today. We would execute non jews who steal or transgress any of the Sheva Mitzvos for that matter.

    We would stone adulterers

    We would kill anyone who spoke against the king etc etc.

    #1030360
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Sam2:

    I would assume that they have a right to interpret their religious mandate. If we would do something based on our interpretation of our religious mandate would you say that it is a valid claim for people to say that this is just how we chose to interpret our religious mandate.

    Lior:

    It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong. They are using the exact same argument as we are so you can’t castigate them simply by claiming that we have the truth. And certainly in the eyes of an outsider there would be no difference.

    000646:

    That is not a difference. If we stop doing something that means that we hold that our religion tells us to stop doing it. They hold that their religion didn’t tell them to stop doing it. So I don’t see how that is a valid argument.

    #1030361
    000646
    Participant

    Patur,

    It’s not an argument defending what was done then.

    The facts are we would not do today what isis is doing. Most European countries 1000 years ago committed atrocities back then, we are no different.

    Until pretty recently the entire world and their legal systems committed atrocities. The main (and only) thing that matters is what we do today. If a Jewish Gadol said today that we should kill anyone who speaks against what he says or kill thieves or stone adulterers we would all agree that the Gadol that said this and his followers are out of their minds.

    Being yeshiva guys we find lumdishe reasons as to why even though we wouldn’t do it today our ancestors were right for doing it then. (See Sam2 above) But that’s not really relevant.

    #1030362
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    ty paa i couldnt articulate it as well as you did,

    000646,

    so if a gadol (lets take r chaim kanievsky) says that a group of people are amalek and we must kill them all, you dont think you’ll have fanatics that will do it?

    #1030363
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    000646:

    I’m not following you. If we hadn’t stopped what we used to do then we would still be doing it because we would say that our religion demands it. Unless we were afraid of the repercussions. So how can we have a tayneh on them if we would do the same thing if our religion demanded it. All you are saying is that our religion no longer demands it. Now it is fine to condemn them as long as you have no problem if the world would condemn us for following our religion.

    #1030364
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “Being yeshiva guys…”

    A tremendous assumption on your part, unless you were only referring to youself.

    #1030365
    000646
    Participant

    Patur,

    You said: “‘m not following you. If we hadn’t stopped what we used to do then we would still be doing it because we would say that our religion demands it…. All you are saying is that our religion no longer demands it. Now it is fine to condemn them as long as you have no problem if the world would condemn us for following our religion.”

    No, we would have found a reason to stop doing it. You know how I know that’s what we would have done? Because that’s what we did. We never got a direct command from Hashem to stop doing things that way, we found reasons not to (even when we had autonomy and technically could have if we wanted to).

    Two people can read the same exact religious book and one will be able to find reasons why they should kill etc. and one will find a bunch of reasons why they should be nice and that killing is wrong. Both will “blame” their actions on their religious book and both will be wrong.

    #1030366
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    So that just means that we were afraid of public backlash and they aren’t.

    #1030367
    000646
    Participant

    Pattur,

    Here’s my point: if we wanted to act the way isis is acting we would be able to find plenty of sources in our religious books telling us we should do so. We don’t want to act like Isis so we look at the sources that support not killing. They act that way because they want to. They then blame it on religion.

    #1030368
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    00646,

    who says? maybe the reason we don’t do it is because israel is run by secularists, however if we had a beis din and a religous ruler we would act just like them

    #1030369
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    That is a very strong possibility but not one that I think you can prove. I could make the same claim about many things in Judaism and I wouldn’t be able to prove them either.

    #1030370
    000646
    Participant

    Coffee addict,

    I don’t know of any frum people in the government of israel or Rabbonim who have ever suggested it to be ideal to stone women or kill non jewish thieves let alone kill people who speak against the government or rabbonim all things Isis or lehavdil etc. a Jewish government a couple thousand years ago would do)

    #1030371
    Randomex
    Member

    000646 seems to be of the opinion that much of what we do does not actually emerge from our sources, but that we interpret our sources according to current external standards of behavior.

    I am not sure that view can be countenanced in Judaism.

    Our system is self-regulatory to ensure that the rules are applied as will be most beneficial in a given situation.

    Example: When murder became more common, we ceased to judge capital cases.

    (Some of the rules are not meant to be practiced, but to teach their lessons. Where circumstances will cause these rules to be put into wide practice, we stop applying those rules.)

    Essential idea from an article by R’ Moshe Grylak, explaining why secular Israelis need not fear a full chareidi government of Israel (killing them for their sins).

    _____________________________________________________________

    I must note that “coffee addict” claimed to be disingenuous in

    his/her original question, meaning that he/she did not mean it sincerely. Take that how you will. Has that also been the case with others in this thread?

    #1030372
    Joseph
    Participant

    Proof is secondary to truth. We know what the truth is whether we can “prove” it or not. We don’t need to prove it to anyone. The Torah is truth as much as the nations of the world deny it.

    #1030373
    benignuman
    Participant

    As a matter of fact our batei din were never bloodthirsty the way ISIS is. Executions were extremely rare. But that is beside the point. The main difference between us and ISIS (and us and the Nazis and every other bad group that ever lived) is that we were right and they are are/were wrong.

    Meaning, there is no objective, outsider, point-of-view that can be used to examine the actions and positions of any group from a moral perspective. Our morals and values are shaped by the society we are brought up and reside in. Very little, if anything, can be said to be objectively bad.

    Klal Yisroel received a direct transmission from the Creator of the Universe as to what our morality should be in many different situations. The same Creator that revealed that infanticide, in general, was wrong, also said that in the special circumstance of the shiva umos, it was required.

    We, and modern society that was influenced by us, find the killing of children to be so repellant specifically because we have imbued the value of the sanctification of life into society as a whole. I do believe that the mitzvos are meant to achieve that effect on us, making violence against the innocent repugnant to us.

    #1030374
    Sam2
    Participant

    Randomex: He is a self-admitted Apikores on here.

    #1030375
    akuperma
    Participant

    ISIS (a.k.a. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or increasingly Islamic State) is no less a threat to Klal Yisrael than were the Communists or Nazis. Again, from a “this world” perspective, our survival will largely depend on the Americans (without whom the Third Reich would rule the world today, or the Communists would have achieved the global dictatorship). While we would undoubtedly survive an Islamic conquest, just as we would have survived a thousand year global Reich, or a global “dictatorship of the proletariat” – suffice to say we’ll have more to worry about than which hecksher to buy and where to go on vacation.

    edited

    While the above deals with “this world” (the world of ???), frum Jews deal more with the world of ??? and have no option other than to concentrate on Torah and Mitsvos and allow Ha-Shem to take care of matters.

    #1030376
    Randomex
    Member

    Sam2, do you mean 000646 or someone else? Either way, why hasn’t he been banned/blocked? Or is that not forum policy?

    edited

    #1030377
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Lior, Beninguman, and anyone else who is saying similar things: It doesn’t matter if we are right because we have the truth. The problem is that you can’t criticize someone for something when they have the same exact excuse as you have for what you do and you don’t expect people to criticize you. You can know that you are right but you should expect to be criticized for what you do. Or don’t criticize other groups and then you can be upset when people criticize you. But you can’t have it both ways.

    #1030378
    Sam2
    Participant

    Randomex: 000646. He’s more or less respectful about it so they let him stay. I think. I’m not a mod.

    #1030379
    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    It doesn’t matter if we are right because we have the truth.

    Of course it does. Same argument as in the other (Daas Torah?) thread. Right is right, whether you can successfully prove it or not. I think you even put a line of mine in the good quotes thread.

    There can be a huge nafka mina about how much we can get away with practically; on that I think we agree.

    #1030380
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    randomex,

    1. i just saw ur first post, idk whhy i didnt before.

    thats whzt isis claims leave, pay a tax or war (there was a youtube video about them on ywn)

    sam,

    randomex was right, i thought u were saying im an apikorus, please clarify in the future when you call someone names

    #1030381
    000646
    Participant

    Beniguman, You said,

    “Meaning, there is no objective, outsider, point-of-view that can be used to examine the actions and positions of any group from a moral perspective. Our morals and values are shaped by the society we are brought up and reside in. Very little, if anything, can be said to be objectively bad.”

    You can judge “morality” of a group or ideology objectively by looking at it and seeing if it imposes suffering on the world or does the opposite. If it decreases suffering you can call it “moral” if it increases it then it is “immoral”. So if an ideology says to kill a million people, or wound them etc. etc. or increases the suffering of the population that carries it then that ideology can be called “objectively immoral” no matter what it’s reason for imposing that suffering is.

    It gets slightly more complicated when it comes to things that claim to cause suffering in the short term to specific people in order to alleviate it in the future for the society at large.

    The key here would be that if you can do something without causing suffering and you choose the way that causes suffering then that would be immoral: For example; if you have a thief and you can educate him not to steal (which will cause less suffering) or lock him in Jail for 20 years, or chop off his head etc. (which would cause more suffering) then taking the second choice would be immoral. (letting him steal from victims would also cause more suffering then educating him not to steal, so here educating him would be more moral then just ignoring the situation)

    Visiting an old lady in the hospital or feeding a poor person, or educating a child are all things that cause less suffering in the world and could be called moral

    #1030382
    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “Of course it does. Same argument as in the other (Daas Torah?) thread. Right is right, whether you can successfully prove it or not. I think you even put a line of mine in the good quotes thread.”

    I’m not disagreeing with that. But in this particular case it does matter. Let’s say that the world thinks that shechita is barbaric. They all start criticizing Jews for engaging in such practices. We get upset at these accusations and defend ourselves by saying that G-d commanded us to do this and it is the ultimate truth etc.

    So how can you then criticize a different group for their barbaric practice when they have the same defense. It doesn’t matter who is right. If you think it’s ok to denigrate someone who claim’s to be following G-d’s will then you better be prepared to be denigrated as well.

    #1030383
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    000646,

    so the war against midian was immoral, the midianim didnt kill anyone they just sent out their girls to bring peace and love to the jewish people and all they get back is war

    #1030384
    akuperma
    Participant

    The war in Eretz Yisrael is a sideshow. Islamic State is not about conquering Eretz Yisrael, though if they conquer the Middle East the liklihood is that they will conquer Israel as well. In fact, many Palestinians do not favor the Islamic State/al Queda/Hamas/Muslim Bortherhood movement, and it would be rational for the zionists to reach out to those who oppose the “radical” (as the west wishes to see them) Muslims.

    #1030385
    Joseph
    Participant

    We can criticize others because we know they worship a falsehood. If they reciprocate the criticism, so what. We know the truth and needn’t defend it.

    #1030386
    writersoul
    Participant

    Everyone’s just arguing about this from two different ends. I’ll pick two random posters who have vociferously argued their sides: Lior and PAA. (000646 is taking an entirely different tack on his side, so I won’t use him.)

    Lior is saying that we can justify ourselves because we have the truth, and that’s what makes us different from them. Torah-true Jews would all agree.

    PAA is saying that we can say that all we like, but the world at large, or even we in some uneasy corner of ourselves, can’t always justify it that way. After all, ISIS (seems to) think that they’re right and they’re divinely ordained, in which case to an objective outsider, we are basically identical, and, in a way, each side is hypocritical if it criticizes the other.

    Neither of your views would seem to be contradictory. On Lior’s side, the only way they would contradict each other is if Lior then went out into the world and argued his case secure in his knowledge that he was right and they were wrong, he would end up against PAA’s roadblock that nobody would believe him and nobody would care. On PAA’s side, the only way they would contradict each other is if PAA took his argument to 000646’s conclusion which is that (or so it seems to me) that in this day and age, what we USED to do is no longer moral- a slippery slope that one could use to apply to many things that can end up being a bit dangerous.

    #1030387
    000646
    Participant

    Coffee Addict,

    Again, the war with Midian or anything that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago is not relevant to this conversation as I pointed out in my earlier comments. All that matters is what a religion or ideology causes or does today. No-one is critical of Isis, Islam or any religion because of what they may have done in the past, they are critical of what they do today.

    #1030388
    anon1m0us
    Participant

    What everyone is forgetting is that when moshach comes,we will know who amalak is and we do still have a mitzvah to kill them. Would you pick up a gun a blow an infants brains out?

    That is the argument Isis is making. Their “true” Torah tells them what they are doing is just. We will be saying the same thing.

    #1030389
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    000646,

    that is not necessarily true,

    we are critical of the crusades, nazis (those who believe the aryan race is the true pure race) the romans, greeks, and persians

    the reason we are critical is because we feel we’re right and they are/were wrong “people cant just go around killing in the name of religion”

    #1030390
    benignuman
    Participant

    000646, you wrote:

    “You can judge “morality” of a group or ideology objectively by looking at it and seeing if it imposes suffering on the world or does the opposite.”

    There are two problems with this position. First, as you yourself hint at, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine what will impose the most suffereing over the long term. ISIS might argue that they are causing a lot of suffering in the short term but in the long term the world will be vastly better off under a thousand-year world-wide caliphate. There is no way to demontrate, or even provide evidence, that ISIS is incorrect.

    Second, and more fundamentally, by what objective means did you determine that “suffering” or the lack thereof, is the most important thing? Maybe truth is the most important? Maybe justice is the most important? My what objective means did you determine that it is moral and good to avoid suffering and immoral and bad to cause suffering?

    I suspect that your “objective” standard, is really just your personal subjective likes and dislikes. You dislike suffering and so you call it immoral.

    #1030391
    benignuman
    Participant

    PAA,

    We can criticize ISIS from a religious perspective (i.e. we are right and they are wrong) or from secular perspective (they present a current, active threat to everyone in the Middle East, while Israel does not). The problem is only if you mix the two. I don’t see a problem criticizing ISIS for its brutality and cruelty so long as Jews and Judaims today are not similarly brutal and cruel.

    #1030392
    Ben Levi
    Participant

    I think the obvious question is that we did what we did not becuase we “interpeted” our religoun to mandate that.

    We did it becuase at the very time G-d “personally. told our leader’s to do that. And since3 we were told to do it directly by G-d we did it , even though it went against our personal feeling’s of pity.

    This is evidenced by the fact that year’s later Shaul HaMelech did display trait’s of mercy shouwin his personal discomfort with following the directives of SHmuel HaNavi and lost his crown becuase of it.

    They (ISIS) do what they do becuase they enjoy killing, they are intrinsic murderer’s so they decide that g-d wants them to do it.

    We abhor killing, and kill only when G-d tells us to, not when we decide he wants us to.

    #1030393
    000646
    Participant

    Beniguman,

    1.) You said,

    “There are two problems with this position. First, as you yourself hint at, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine what will impose the most suffereing over the long term. ISIS might argue that they are causing a lot of suffering in the short term but in the long term the world will be vastly better off under a thousand-year world-wide caliphate. There is no way to demontrate, or even provide evidence, that ISIS is incorrect.”

    They can “argue” that all they want. They would however need proof to justify it in order for anyone to take their arguments seriously: They would have to provide proof that a caliphate will cause the world to contain less suffering, and that there is no other way of accomplishing whatever the goals of having a caliphate would accomplish to lessen the suffering by causing less pain. If they did this then we could have a discussion.

    2.) You said

    “Second, and more fundamentally, by what objective means did you determine that “suffering” or the lack thereof, is the most important thing? Maybe truth is the most important? Maybe justice is the most important? My what objective means did you determine that it is moral and good to avoid suffering and immoral and bad to cause suffering?”

    Pointless suffering by definition is something that is not what human beings (or even animals) consider a good thing, completely independent of any religious beliefs they may or may not have.

    Objectivity will always from the standpoint of our existence even from a religious standpoint. What is “objectively” moral about pleasing a God? maybe God being constantly upset is more moral?

    #1030394
    Joseph
    Participant

    anon1m0us: Yes. You wouldn’t do so?

    #1030396
    000646
    Participant

    Coffee Addict,

    My point is that no one is critical of Germany’s policies today because of their past Nazi government the same with Persian government and Greek government.

    #1030397
    Joseph
    Participant

    The answer is simple: We are right and they are wrong. We were told by G-d to do so and they were not (despite claiming to be doing G-d’s will.) We can criticize them because they are going against G-d’s will whereas we are going and went in accordance with G-d’s will. Our argument is simply we are doing G-d’s will whereas they are not. Whether it is provable or unprovable to non-Jews is secondary. We don’t need to have a winning argument in order for us to speak and know the truth.

Viewing 49 posts - 1 through 49 (of 49 total)
  • The topic ‘Isis vs. klal yisrael’ is closed to new replies.