That, actually, was not all that surprising to me - it follows patterns established by history. What was surprising to me were the bits from the atlantic article which saidthat muslims who had ‘diverted from the faith’ were marked for death - much more so then christians and jews were, who were permitted to live if they paid a tax. I am amazed that such a genocidal attitude can form a state to begin with. The article from the atlantic quotes the same bit you describe, it talks specifically about the Yazidi (also known as Kurds):
Yazidi women and children [are to be] divided according to the Shariah amongst the fighters of the Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations [in northern Iraq] … Enslaving the families of the kuffar [infidels] and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Shariah that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Koran and the narrations of the Prophet … and thereby apostatizing from Islam.
Not only does the author advocate for enslavement of their enemies, but anybody who does not does so is an apostate - and apostates are immeaditely put to death under ISIS’s methodology.
Bleergh.
edit:
So to go back to your original question “How much tolerance do we give the intolerant” - None, as said, but in the case of ISIS it’s not a question that is applicable. The question of giving tolerance to the intolerant presumes that the intolerant in question are themselves looking for acceptance, whilst not understanding that this is a process that goes both ways. However, ISIS does not desire to be tolerated. Instead, one should look at it’s objectives and propaganda goals.
- ISIS desires to be the caliphate. For that it needs territory and manpower.
- ISIS desires a showdown with the forces of “Rome”, or the enemies of Islam.
The most logical step, to me, is to … simply not give them what they want. For that, one must prevent people from joining them, and do that one has to stop the effectiveness of their propaganda. In order to do that, one must prove it false. The current situation in regards to the war against ISIS is one that does that: A state like the US never engages ISIS directly but rather sticks to bombing attacks (which are still awfull, but okay) and engages ISIS only trough proxy (Kurd, Iraq and Syrian armies). As a result, ISIS is shrinking in territory, and it’s becoming obvious to anyone watching that ISIS is not the chosen kaliphate at all. Attacking ISIS on the ground directly looks tempting, but it’s exactly one of the things ISIS wants, and attacking a place in the middle east on the ground directly has been something that NATO forces have been rather bad at lately. Not in terms of the attacking, but in the terms of holding territory. We can’t afford another Afghanistan or another Iraq. All we end up doing is placing assets into Al Queda’s hands (let’s not forget those).
