re-stating my position

Submitted by Michael S. (United States), Nov 5, 2014 at 01:05

Hello again, dhimminomore.

We seem to be cross-posting a bit; but this is unavoidable, so that Daniel can carefully vet our submissions. Let's see, you said,

MS: Yes, it is hypocritical to try to hold Muslims to standards that Christians didn't even practice until fewer than 200 years ago, especially since those standards are not even in the Bible.

DNM: I'm trying to understand your very flawed logic: So let me see are you saying that we should not bring to the attention of the whole world that the terrorists of Da'ish are enslaving Yazidi women because there are passages in the Bible about slavery?

You can't understand my "flawed logic", because I am not using flawed logic. Moving on, let me try to see why you found it necessary to re-phrase everything I said:

DNM: are you saying that we should not bring to the attention of the whole world that the terrorists of Da'ish are enslaving Yazidi women because there are passages in the Bible about slavery?

No, I am not. I said something completely different. I was speaking about "standards", and you are talking about "bringing things to the attention of the world". There's no connection there.

Concerning the mention of slavery in the Bible, let's start by showing what the Bible actually SAID, so we both know what we're talking about. Concerning Hebrew slaves,

Lev. 25:
[39] And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
[40] But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile:
[41] And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
[42] For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.

Hebrew slaves were thus to serve only for a set time, and were to be well-treated. Non-Hebrew slaves, on the other hand, were treated differently:

1 Kings 9:
[21] Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice unto this day.
[22] But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen.

Now, let's compare this to what the Da'esh clerics are said to have said, in the OP:

The anonymous author argues that they are not monotheists but follow a creed "deviant from the truth." Therefore, they do not deserve a protected (dhimmi) status.

Da'esh is making much the same judgment as King Solomon made, namely, that those outside of (Hebrew in one case, Islamic in the other) law are not afforded the same protections as those within those systems. Both Solomon and Da'esh have applied this principle to slavery.

Arguing that Da'esh has somehow committed a "moral crime" against the Yazidis, therefore, is also arguing against King Solomon and practices sanctioned by our own most sacred scriptures. The standard of morality in such an argument, then, is clearly not Christian or Jewish morality: it is a "new morality", apart from the Bible -- the pseudo-morality of the "New World Order". There is no "logical" reason for Da'esh to follow such a "morality".

There, I've re-stated myself for you, with references. I hope my position is now easier to understand.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".