What ISIS Really Wants

[arkirk]

If there's a group of people who really want to run around and kill others, I don't think the lack of finding a suitable religion to follow is going to stop them.

True, it did not stop Mohamed and his followers.

History has shown that to be true. Going after regular people who follow religions moderately isn't going to stop the problem of extremism.

How do you feel about moderate nazi?

I didn't say anything about "going after" anybody at all. If you are going to take sides between these factions, you are pissing in the wind. You should be aiming at starving all support for violence. Christian violence is really the same thing..and it comes from ordinary Christians. Try this one also on for size...petroleumism. That is the unspoken religion of people who cannot see past the end of the petroleum age. These people get violent too. What I say is don't support any of it at all. That has nothing to do with "going after" anybody. The Christians and the Muslims and the petro boys all seem to have no qualms about killing for their beloved ideals. There are ways to demur from these contests and that is always my choice. You can support the Christians in Uganda who kill people who violate what they call Christian Doctrine if you wish...or support Obama who shoots at Islamists with drones we are forced to buy for him...or some Muslim sect...or oil company. Once any of these factions gets the upper hand, they just tighten the screws. You will not be finding the humanism that is necessary for cooperation and ending these conflicts by helping the religious fight with each other. That is as far as my suggestions went. ISIS has the same type of domination in mind as Obama. Its methods just look a little more spooky...to us and our drones definitely are spooky to them.

It appears to me we would be better off conserving our energies for furthering other agendas, like cooperation, like alternative energy, like education and peace making. These conflicts are so gross and do not have an intellectual basis for their continuance...just faith and lies and myths.

 

[KeepTalking]

But the majority of Muslims do not agree with them, therefor, once again, the problem is not that they are Muslim.

You seem to be dancing about playing word games. In the mean time people motivated by religious beliefs that you dare not label are sawing off heads, crucifying apostates and enslaving women and children.

How is it dancing around, or playing word games to state very explicitly that when a small fraction of those who profess themselves to be Muslim start acting violently, this is not an indictment against all Muslims? If most Muslims can practice their faith without sawing off heads, crucifying apostates and enslaving women and children, then it is obvious that simply being Muslim is not that which causes the members of ISIL to start sawing off heads, crucifying apostates and enslaving women and children. Yes, they are Muslims, I have never said that they are not. They are, however, a very specific subset of Muslims with a very specific label that can be used to distinguish them from all other Muslims. Using this label to refer to them, rather than the more generic label, only makes sense. One must have a very dismal reasoning ability to come to any other conclusion.

 

[EPresence2]

What Obama needs to state is that *Islamism*, and radical Islamism in particular, is not a religion of peace, that it is incompatible with Western values, and that we are at war with it. Those who are Muslims but *not* Islamists can peacefully co-exist in our society and with the West. Obama also needs to stand up for freedom of speech and plainly state that Islam is an idea and, like all ideas, it is open to scrutiny, criticism, and satire.

The article was definitely compelling and somewhat at odds with how the President is presenting the threat of ISIS and other interpretations of the Quran that espouse violence against apostates and dominion over unbelievers. ISIS is certainly trying to follow the letter of the Quran in it's "methodology." Yet there is another strict interpretation of the text that discourages violent upheaval and chaos - with followers known as "Quiet Salafhis." ISIS apparently scoffs at their interpretation, but they can't call them liers like they can Obama (re: "ISIS in not Islamic"). The Quiet Salafhis adhere to the letter of the Quran just as strictly as ISIS but they are living under secular rule for the sake of stability and order... until Allah establishes the Caliphate. It's just that ISIS weighs the problem of violent upheaval and chaos differently.

Moderate interpretations consider many of the laws in the Quran to no longer apply to the modern age - both Salafhis groups would consider them apostates. Christian groups can be broken along similar lines as well - moderates who consider many of the biblical laws to no longer apply, and fundamentalists who disdain secular rule of law where it contradicts biblical law. What's stopping many Christians from espousing a very strict interpretation of their holy text is probably the same as what is stopping many Muslims: taking other sources of wisdom to heart and mind. At least muslims can fall back to a strict interpretation that does not espouse violence against apostates and dominion over unbelievers. Maybe Islam is can be a religion of peace.