This article was really helpful for me in developing a better understanding of ISIS. I found the dependence on possession of land particularly interesting. That fact seems particularly important in any global strategy for taking power away from ISIS.
During soviet invasion there was Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen. Sympathizers of that group founded al-Qaeda. Sympathizers of Al-qaeda founded Taleban. Sympathizers Al-qaeda founded ISIS.
Muslim extremists have shown potential to go international, local or underground. Name changes, people change, methods change. Bullshit continues.
ISIS has predicted it's own downfall in near future, so they will appear to be right if they are stripped off land. Given internet is more widespread than ever, Muslims are more widespread than ever and secular Muslim leaders are in tough spot.
Imagine ISIS will turn into international underground terrorist organization like al-quaeda? But with more vengeance, credibility and supporters. To me confiding the problem into poor part of middle east seems like the best option.
You make a causal relation, that in my opinion is correct, between the Mujahideen and ISIS but you only mention the invasion of Afghanistan as it was circumstantial.
It's a more correct theory, I think, to say that the Mujahideen were caused by the invasion of Afghanistan and the support of the CIA in order to mess with the Russians.
And we could follow from there.
Islam could be a religion of war or only an excuse that those that want to do war use, I have not the answer. But I feel dismay reading the discussion that there is now in Europe and the States. From the comment sections of HN or the NYT to the discourses of the politics, the majority of the commenters forget to talks about, for instance, why there is a "land of nobody" where the creation of a Caliphate is possible. It's like if Irak, Iran, EUA, Europe, Arabia, Israel has nothing to do with what is going here. As if it all the violence comes from something in the water in the region.
How is it possible that the Islam nature is our main concern?
To those that are so worried about how violent is the Islam I would like to remember that is the destruction of Iraq, Syria, and in general all the area, with uncountable deaths, by the way, what allow those crazy fanatics to be in a position of create a country.
Surely some people would like to excuse all that saying that "mistakes were done". Ok, but, at least, we should talk about those mistakes.
Personally I avoid talking about those mistakes because they were not my mistakes. Nor mistakes of my country.
I have absolutely no qualms with Iran, and never had. You could call me nationalist and cultural relativist. I really think any nation should have the option of forming a state. While I really don't agree with some stuff happening in Iran, it's really not my responsibility.
I think the best option would be to have the daesh to transform into Sunni version of Iran. That's not going to fly because everybody is angry with them. But that seems to be the only way how things could realistically settle down in the long run.
Frankly, I think the response completely missed the point of the article, which is about the intentions of ISIS.
However. There is definitely an ideological fight here over what Islam is. I just think it is a separate discussion altogether. I didn't read the article as attempting to do anything but discern the intentions of the state. Could someone explain? I'm having a difficult time not seeing these issues as a projection of fears.
I read both. I wish the article you linked to had more substance. It provides no argument that ISIS is misinterpreting Islam, only assertions. If someone has an article that actually makes that case, citing texts and explaining the misinterpretation, I'd like to read it.
It is hard to explain the idea of the narrative and give all the details within a couple of pages. There are detailed (and somewhat tedious) refutations from Islamic theologians such as al-Yaqubi's Refuting ISIS (http://www.amazon.com/Refuting-ISIS-Religious-Ideological-Fo...). Mohammad al-Yaqubi is an orthodox Sunni scholar who was the Imam of the largest Mosque in Damascus until being forced into exile by the Syrian government. There are other works by scholars from different currents within Sunni Islam.
As a lay Muslim, I will give a few examples. The interpretation of correct Islamic creed and behavior according to Sunni Muslims is according to the Qur'an and Hadith as understood by the early Muslims, principally the first four caliphs and some of the closest students of the Prophet, succeeding generations, and four or five schools of law established thereafter. Within these schools, there is debate and re-interpretation. So simply citing a snippet of text to support your position, if it contradicts other texts, established practice, or informed consensus opinion is not going to fly.
For example, Daesh burned a captured Jordanian pilot alive while his tribe and the Jordanian government wanted to have him released under a prisoner exchange. There are specific Hadith and verses to support that prisoners of war can be ransomed or exchanged. More pointedly, there is a well accepted Hadith that burning is specifically prohibited as a punishment for even the severest enemies. This is a well-known Hadith and is accepted by all schools of law. So Daesh not only ignored all the Islamically available options which they might have used, but did an act to further inflame specific Sunni Muslim communities that they claim to defend. Further, they did something which would offend all people ethically and goes against specific Islamic rules.
While slavery in the medieval period was practiced against enemies that would do the same, there has been a consensus among Muslims and non-Muslims alike that this is a thing of the past. Muslim governemnts have signed specific international conventions banning it. Even extremely vile outfits like their predecessors like AQ had never mentioned bringing it back. They however chose to revive it against communities that were not doing this to them.
Sending irregular forces under the guise of a Muslim community which is bound by a legal agreement with a country and endangering said agreement is something that is again prohibited. i.e., the Muslims living in France as citizens or foreigners are under a legal framework of citizenship or diplomatic recognition of Muslim countries wherein they are given legal protection in France in return for obeying French law and not fighting them.
the gist is, They are interpreting things literally without any history and context of what a verse of Quran meant and revealed for, one would argue that should have been fine, but it isn't because it reduces islam to their interpretation.
Arabic is a very diverse language, with tens of meanings for a word (often contradictory) and which one you pick and choose depends upon what type of a person you are, if you are a hate mongering terrorist, you would find those meanings to justify your terror like isis is doing, if you are a peace loving feminist, you would find plenty to justify that (using the same verses). This would mean that their interpretation would depend alot on their socio economic status, the kind of society they live in, the world view they have etc.
People often judge islam by the norms of 6th century arabia, Islam has a evolutionary process in place called ijtihad, which the intolerant people don't seem to use. But if you would have to judge islam, you would have to either assume yourself to be in 6th century to see why they were relevant at that time, or to remove them so to understand the general direction islam gives.
> If you'd like to read how they are misinterpreting islam ... They are interpreting things literally
That is an odd definition of "misinterpreting".
Biblical literalists are generally not accused of "misinterpreting" the Christian Bible. They are commonly accused of being antiquated, crazy, or dumb, but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they follow its literal meaning.
It similarly seems incorrect to say ISIS is "misinterpreting Islam" by reading the Koran literally. It may not be the popular interpretation, and it may not be a pleasant interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's an incorrect interpretation.
Christian groups like to accuse each other of misinterpreting the Bible. Church of Christ members say that Catholics have misinterpreted the organization of the church. Catholics say that Baptists have misinterpreted the apocalypse. Etc. These accusations in reality say very little about the validity of the accused's interpretations, and merely serve as a way for the accuser's to assert the correctness of their own interpretations. "Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong" has no more validity than "Your choice of religion is wrong" in general.
> but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they follow its literal meaning.
Not so hard actually. A correct interpretation of a work is to discern what the author actually intended to communicate. If I say to a coworker "a meteor is about to strike earth, wiping out all life unless we do something about it" and the listener interprets what I say to be a metaphor (perhaps they think that I am trying to say simply that the project we are working on is in danger of falling apart) they may or may not be correct. If I work at an accounting firm, the statement is probably metaphorical; if I work at NASA, probably not.
In any case, determining the meaning of a text depends upon the genre, and to understand that you need context. The main issue that most Christian traditions have with literalists is that they try to interpret the texts without any of the original context, or without any acknowledgement that the Bible is an anthology of different books written by different authors for different purposes.
>It similarly seems incorrect to say ISIS is "misinterpreting Islam" by reading the Koran literally. It may not be the popular interpretation, and it may not be a pleasant interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's an incorrect interpretation.
You're right, it may be a correct interpretation. Understanding the correct interpretation of Islamic texts is important for those deciding how to approach the spread of violent Islamic teachings. Should it be left to Islamic religious leaders who can leverage Islamic texts to spread a more peaceful (and accurate) teaching, or should the focus be to discredit Islam from the outside?
> "Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong" has no more validity than "Your choice of religion is wrong" in general.
Any given religious text was written by a human being to convey a set of ideas an claims. It is no less valid to talk about a correct interpretation of religious texts than it is to talk about the correct interpretation of any other text.
> Should it be left to Islamic religious leaders who can leverage Islamic texts to spread a more peaceful (and accurate) teaching, or should the focus be to discredit Islam from the outside?
Here you are attempting to equate accuracy with peacefulness, with nothing given to support that link. To be clear, I don't have a strong opinion on whether Islam is a peaceful religion or not. I have not done enough research to be confident in that sort of claim. I do, however, find it disingenuous to claim that the ISIS interpretation is wrong when the only support given for that claim is that it differs from some other muslims' interpretations.
> It is no less valid to talk about a correct interpretation of religious texts than it is to talk about the correct interpretation of any other text.
Sure, it's reasonable and valid to say "Here's a thing ISIS believes about Islam. Here is the context around that thing. And here is the reason ISIS is wrong." That's not what's happening here, though. This is more like "Here's a thing ISIS believes. I promise you that there is some context that makes them wrong. See, other Muslims agree that ISIS is wrong."
> Here you are attempting to equate accuracy with peacefulness, with nothing given to support that link.
I made no such equivocation, though I apologize if I was unclear.
My point was that the strategy Western countries should take towards addressing violent Islamic sects depends upon what the correct interpretation of their religious texts is. If the moderates are correct in their interpretation, it would be better to let them convince the radicals because they would have greater common ground, and the "home court advantage" in interpreting their texts.
> I do, however, find it disingenuous to claim that the ISIS interpretation is wrong when the only support given for that claim is that it differs from some other muslims' interpretations.
I completely agree. I also do not know what the correct interpretation is, though it is becoming increasingly clear that I should probably learn.
I think we have been arguing at cross-purposes. I thought you were claiming that "all interpretations are equally valid" or something like that. It seems now that you are arguing that "ISIS's interpretation isn't necessarily invalid just because moderate Muslims say it is". If that is your point, then I agree with you and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
In which case, your reply to the grandparent comment makes more sense. I've done a little bit of studying ancient texts in the original language (with help from classicists and theologians) and while the nuances in these ancient languages allow for multiple levels of meaning, it emphatically does not mean that you can interpret whatever you want into the texts.
> It seems now that you are arguing that "ISIS's interpretation isn't necessarily invalid just because moderate Muslims say it is".
Essentially, yes. It's hard to say that someone is right in their religious interpretation, based just on how much disagreement there is, but that's not the same as saying all interpretations are equally valid.
If someone claims that Jesus commanded his followers to kill nonbelievers, that's a pretty problematic interpretation of the Bible. On the other hand, if one person says Jesus established the system of popes and another person disagrees, it's really difficult to that one of these interpretations is objectively better, even though the difference in interpretation is pretty significant.
> If that is your point, then I agree with you and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
No apologies necessary. You made a civil response to my comment and (we thought) we disagreed. If only all discussions online were like this. :)
> the strategy Western countries should take towards addressing violent Islamic sects depends upon what the correct interpretation of their religious texts is
A "correct interpretation" of a book written by a dead author is, in essence, an oxymoron. I would argue that this point is not debatable.
All modern Christian bibles are many generations of interpretation from the original text. I would presume the same to be true of the Quran (though it's a bit younger, so perhaps it's had slightly fewer generations of interpretation than the christian bible).
There is no "correct interpretation" of Shakespeare's works (which are arguably true to their original writing in our current records of them), and they're only 400 years old. How can we possibly presume there is a "correct interpretation" of a text that's ostensibly 1400 years old?
I know I'm late to the party in this thread, but still - "correct interpretation" is just not a thing with literary works, regardless of whom you attribute them to.
> I know I'm late to the party in this thread, but still - "correct interpretation" is just not a thing with literary works, regardless of whom you attribute them to.
No worries. I'm glad to continue the discussion as I think it is important.
> A "correct interpretation" of a book written by a dead author is, in essence, an oxymoron. I would argue that this point is not debatable.
Let's take the Shakespeare example, as I think it is a good example and less likely to cause strife.
What is the purpose of Romeo and Juliet? Was it written to be a non-fiction historical account of politics in Renaissance Verona, or was it supposed to be a fictional drama meant primarily to entertain its audience?
It seems obvious to me that this question is meaningful, and even has an objectively correct answer. That is, there is a correct interpretation as to the purpose of Romeo and Juliet that we can glean from a combination of the text itself as well as the historical information about the context it was written in - Shakespeare's current vital signs notwithstanding. Wherein lies the oxymoron?
> A "correct interpretation" of a book written by a dead author is, in essence, an oxymoron. I would argue that this point is not debatable.
No, its not an oxymoron, any more than "correct interpretation" is always an oxymoron; a living author doesn't even necessarily make it easier to identify the correct interpretation, since individuals are not static, and the author's preferred interpretation at a later time may not reflect their intent when they wrote the text.
Only by other Christians pushing their own interpretations. When Ben Carson says that the world was literally created in 6 days, lots of people say he's crazy, but the only people who say he's misinterpreting the text are people who want to push their own interpretation, generally because they want to push the idea of Christianity being totally copacetic with modern science.
Okay, but that seems equivalent to saying that ISIS isn't actually wrong in their interpretation, just unpopular. :\
The biblical literalists are not wrong when they say that the Bible tells them that God created Earth in 6 days. That is what it says. The more common "metaphorical interpretation" is more recent than the acceptance as a true origin story.
I think it's fair to say if you read the bible literally, you're missing out on a lot of what it has to say. Is that the same as misinterpreting that? I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader. :P
> When Ben Carson says that the world was literally created in 6 days, lots of people say he's crazy, but the only people who say he's misinterpreting the text are people who want to push their own interpretation
Yes, it is trivially true, by definition, that the only people who say that someone has an incorrect interpretation is people who would portray a different interpretation is correct. That's what saying an interpretation is incorrect means.
Obviously, but appealing to others' religious beliefs is hardly a compelling argument when trying to make a claim about correctness or truth. My point is that if you look to secular scholars, they are unlikely to be accusing Ben Carson of interpreting the Bible incorrectly. They might call him an idiot, but they'll call him an idiot for his belief that the Earth was created in 6 days, not because he argues that the Bible says this.
When I said it's "hard to accuse someone of misinterpreting...", I meant that it's hard to accuse them in a convincing or sound manner. Obviously it's easy to accuse anyone of basically anything. You just open your mouth and make the accusation. But to do so convincingly takes effort beyond "I don't like their interpretation so they must be wrong". The literal interpretation actually seems like the default, and any other interpretation demands support.
> Biblical literalists are generally not accused of "misinterpreting" the Christian Bible.
Yes, they are. Particularly by other Christians.
> but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they follow its literal meaning.
No, its quite easy: outside of the context of religion, we see it all the time when people are accused of misinterpreting something by treating either one-off metaphors or colloquial figures of speech as if their meaning was what is suggested by the literal meanings of the individual words. Or when one of many possible literal meaning (words often have more than one nonfigurative meaning) is chosen, despite the fact that the context (possibly very broad context) suggests a different interpretation, whether a different literal interpretation or a nonliteral one.
Its no harder to accuse people of misinterpretation for pursuing a particular literal interpretation when the thing being misinterpreted is a religious text.
> Yes, they are. Particularly by other Christians.
You're making my point for me. Yes, some Christians accuse biblical literalists of misinterpreting the Bible. But Christian groups frequently assert that other Christian groups are wrong for many, many reasons. There's generally little compelling reason to take any of them as "more correct", though. It's just one group arguing that their religion is more correct than someone else's religion. It's not one group interpreting correctly and the other group misinterpreting. It's just two (or more) groups that disagree, and they typically have no sound reason to assert their beliefs over others'.
> No, its quite easy: outside of the context of religion...
Sure, it's easy when you can provide a reason that the literal interpretation is wrong. It's not easy when the reason is just that you don't like the literal interpretation (or it's easy but not valid).
> Sure, it's easy when you can provide a reason that the literal interpretation is wrong.
That's frequently the case with criticism of biblical literalism. While, certainly, the people making the criticism have different interpretations that they prefer as correct (that is, obviously, what it means to say that an interpretation is wrong), and those that care enough about an interpretation to challenge another as incorrect are generally people for whom their preferred interpretation is also an element of the their religious belief and not just a more casual opinion, there are quite specific reasons given for challenges both to specific literal interpretations and to the doctrine of literalism itself (for the latter, the existence of flat-out contradictions within the canon when interpreted literally is one of the more common.)
In my experience that is rarely the case. The reasons given are generally only compelling to others who already hold the same beliefs. If you're arguing against biblical literalism to others who consider the bible to be metaphorical, you will of course be successful. If you're arguing with a biblical literalist, you'll find that they fail to see the logic in your arguments. If you're arguing with a non-Christian, they'll likely just not care, but they might also find your arguments no more convincing than those of the literalist.
> for the latter, the existence of flat-out contradictions within the canon when interpreted literally is one of the more common.
This is only compelling if you start with the axiom that the bible (or whatever text) is correct. If you start with that, and then add contradictions, then the only way to resolve the discrepancy is to say that the bible is metaphorical. If you don't take correctness as an axiom, it's quite reasonable to say that the bible is mostly if not completely literal but that parts of it are simply wrong. It's not a question of correctness of interpretation, then, so much as a question of correctness of the canon.
> This is only compelling if you start with the axiom that the bible (or whatever text) is correct.
Which would perhaps be a serious problem with criticizing biblical literalism with that argument if the literalism being criticized ever failed to included a strong form of inerrantism; since, as a doctrine, Biblical literalism is always tied to strong-form inerrantism (which is the axiom that the Bible is, in every particular, both moral and factual, correct), and subsidiary doctrines on matters of fact and/or morals can only be derived from it through its intersection with inerrantism, it really isn't a problem that challenges to literalism rely on arguments that are valid in the presence of inerrantism.
> If you don't take correctness as an axiom
Without inerrantism, whether something is a correct or incorrect interpretation of the Bible doesn't have any significance. Literalism or not only has any meaning in the context of inerrantism.
Those are good points. I concede that arguments against literalism that rely on one's belief can be useful and valid for believers. I'm not sure this is sufficient to demonstrate that, e.g. ISIS's interpretation is any less correct than other Muslim's though. When ISIS says the scriptures demand that apostates be crucified, I'm not sure that it's sufficient to point to another passage that says, hypothetically, to love everyone. You might argue that these are in contradiction and therefore the crucifixion is metaphorical or out of context, but they could as easily argue that the two are not in conflict, or that the love part is the metaphor (or taken or of context).
They are definitely taking non-traditional interpretations along with traditional ones. I still don't see how this is at all interesting—what matters is that ISIS members buy into it.
Yes. ISIS has cultivated a doomsday cult through their propaganda machine. ISIS wants to be seen by the world as a doomsday cult, and all their propaganda is aimed at this.
But ISIS's actions in the past have not matched their propaganda. For example why is an organisation that claim's to adhere to Salafist fundamentalist principles, in war with pretty much every Salafist faction in Syria?During 2013 - mid 2014, they were in a truce with Assad's government. At the time they almost exclusively attacked Rebel outfits. Many groups including the Syrian Observatory kept claiming that several major ISIS offensives on rebels, were often preceeded by airstrikes from the Syrian govt indicating coordination and cooperation.
The truth is that ISIS is a purely opportunistic faction that won't allow any moral or even religious considerations from getting in the way of its ambitions.
That was an interesting read. It did sound like ISIS has a powerful faction, at least, that is only using religion as a pretense and tool.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean that all of ISIS is like that. It could be that such men as Bakr were instrumental in getting things started, but those brought in to provide religious pretense eventually became the more powerful faction.
Also, I don't see how temporary alliances with a secular regime indicate lack of true religious conviction. If making temporary, strategic alliances with Assad and fighting agianst the Syrian rebels was plainly hypocritical, I would think that would staunch the flow of true believers to their ranks. And while we may debate whether or not ISIS is the haven of belief it portrays itself to be, I don't think we can question that there are many, many people on the outside that it successfully recruits because they believe it to be that. Which requires at least that the hypocrisy not be blatantly obvious.
>I don't see how temporary alliances with a secular regime indicate lack of true religious conviction.
Group C that claims to be defenders of group A against group B, secretly allies itself with B against A. How does that not indicate lack of religious conviction. The general narrative of ISIS, is that they are the most strictest in adherence to medieval Islam. But to me it looks that they are the most flexible in their adherence in favour of tactical pragmatism.
>"staunch the flow of true believers to their ranks."
What makes you think that the majority of followers of ISIS is attracting are true believers?
According to the Sun (admittedly less reliable source; make of it what you will) Jihadi John was into drugs, and alcohol. By other accounts he was rebellious, socially isolated, and on the wayward side of society.
Most of the people recruited seem to follow a pattern of rebelliousness, impulsiveness, poor decisions (frequently involving drugs, jailtime, etc.), rather than sever religiosity through years of attending madrasas. In the west people of a similar disposition might find themselves joining gangs, or in a downward spiral of hard drugs, or making other poor decisions. The ones with the most severe prognosis might end up as school shooters, or doing hard time. ISIS has set itself as a cult to attract such people and has given them a cause.
Quote from former AQ member turned informant :
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31700894
"There is no single process of radicalisation. Some people, it took them years to be convinced of coming to the jihad and some people it took them minutes. Some people were studying in religious seminaries - they're a minority by the way - and then decided to come and some people basically just came straight out of a night club you know while he was consuming alcohol basically to come and seek redemption there in the jihadist world.
So you know you see immediately that you know there isn't one single classical journey there, that there are so many journeys."
There are many scattered reports of defections by disillusioned members, but we won't probably know the real truth until after the conflict. Of course, one doesn't simply cash in their last paycheck and walk away from such an organisation, so even if there were mass defections it would be in secret because of fear for safety of them and their families.
This response article misses a major point, most likely deliberately, that ISIS are following the actions of Mohammed himself, who they see as the perfect man. In the same way that Christians (in theory) would like to emulate the life of Christ, fundamentalist Muslims want to emulate the life of Mohammed. But Mohammed was not a man of peace. He was a warrior, who killed his enemies, targeted the Jews, kept slaves, encouraged rape of female captives, beheaded prisoners, took territory by force, treated non-Muslims as second-class citizens, and had a child bride. Therefore many of the verses in the Koran and Hadith are about these topics, and as they are a core part of the founder's life, they cannot be removed or reformed.
This article seems to say that ISIS' violence against civilians and other Muslims has its roots in a 13th century interpretation of Islamic warfare, but that's obviously not true. One example is that Mohammed killed the jews in Medina after they had peacefully surrendered. Another is that the Muslim expansion before the that time was accompanied by plenty of violence.
Citation please. And a more trustworthy and neutral one than what you have given.
Which battle are you referring to?
edit: Perhaps the Battle of the Trench.
If so, your comment is misleading. The Jews were forced into a surrender after having betrayed their former muslim allies in favour of the confederates.
"Following the retreat of the Confederate army, the Banu Qurayza neighbourhoods were besieged by the Muslims, in revenge for their treachery. After a 25-day siege of their neighbourhood the Banu Qurayza unconditionally surrendered. When the Banu Qurayza tribe surrendered, the Muslim army seized their stronghold and their possessions.[29] On the request of the Banu Aus, who were allied to the Qurayza, Muhammad chose one of them, Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh, as an arbitrator to pronounce judgment upon them. Sa'ad, who would later die of his wounds from the battle, decreed the sentence according to the Torah, in which the men shall be killed and women and children enslaved.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 says:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. [30]
Muhammad approved of this decision, and the next day the sentence was carried out."
Your point illustrates rather than negates mine, which is that Mohammed was a military leader, rather than a peacemaker. After the Battle of the Trench his army, under his command, killed many hundreds of Jews, who had surrendered. Here is the next section of the Wikipedia page:
>Then they surrendered, and the Apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the Apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the Apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the Apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the Apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off.
This actually says that Mohammed himself beheaded the Jews, but even if he didn't, he allowed it to happen. Thus, ISIS follow this same pattern.
I think I will take the word of the billion Muslims who don't believe Islam is about war, slavery, and rape over the word of you and ISIS.
Judaism is not about emulating Abraham, David, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, or Isaac all of whom did at least some of the terrible things you mention. So why do you presume to speak for Islam, rather than listen to the vast, overwhelming majority of its followers?
I don't think he is speaking for Islam. He said that ISIS is attempting to follow the life of Mohammad. He did not say that what ISIS is doing represents the views of most Muslims.
I understood his point to be implying that Islam inherently and uniquely among religions gives rise to the sort of radicalism we see with Isis. If I'm not misunderstanding, I hope he expands on what he thinks the implications of this worldview are.
The problem with the whole issue is that all of us need to talk much more about religion in general.
Many people feel the need to believe in something which extends beyond physical reality and that's the reason we have freedom of religion.
Time again history has shown though that religions often tend to go overboard in terms of violence so most modern societies have taken a pragmatic approach to offer freedom of religion under certain checks (i.e. not infringing on the freedoms of others from a secular perspective).
That said Einstein believed in god so don't belittle someone because of their religion and most importantly don't let fear take over your humanity (most people never got asked if they wanted to be "a muslim", "a christian" or "a jew").
What we need is more dialogue, not wars - those usually just create even more suffering and pain.
Talk to people - especially to the ones you don't feel comfortable talking to - we are all together on this pale blue dot.
So, this is probably going to get touchy, but I think the more fundamental issue is that religion, both from epistemological and functional perspectives as a movement, is incompatible with democracy.
In the sense that one cannot simultaneously hold the following two sets of beliefs:
Religion: knowledge by authority, submission to authority, authority by appeal to ex-human grantor, otherwise ignorance until submission before authority
Democracy: knowledge by inalienable and intrinsic human nature, authority as composed of the will of individuals, pluralism as a path to better decisions for the whole society
I personally believe religion is a powerful force for good in the world. But, if we're being really honest, a lot of times that's because of the stuff we're leaving out or bending rather than the strict interpretation.
What we're missing is that most practicing religious people don't literally follow word of their holy text. The torah and the bible and the koran aren't typically interpreted by Supreme Court justices carefully weighing over the meaning of every word. In the present day we think of those types of interpretations as fundamentalist and extremist. The problem is the literal texts contain dated values and typical modern practices are far from the texts. We have reached a point in religious practice where there is a chasm between religious texts and religious practices. Religious pragmatists want to live in the modern world while maintaining the values that they find comforting within their religion but the world is perpetually at risk of damage done in the name of the literal interpretation of religious texts.
For each of the points you mentioned I can make a solid case supported by examples that Mohammad was a proponent of peace, extraordinarily lenient towards his enemies, protected Jews as well as Christians, spearheaded the liberation of slaves and the abolition of slavery, was extremely strict about the fair treatment of captives including women, and in general instituted protections for the weak parties in society, including children and widows.
As a peaceful, tolerant and rational Muslim, the likes of which somehow manage to exist in spite of the purported bad example of the man we strive to follow, I just want to put this out there not to leave your comment undisputed, in case there are people who are not knowledgeable about the topic. I don't have time for a treatise but as I said, there are more sides to every story, so do your own research.
(On an unrelated note I flagged this story, since sigh HN is one of the few places where this stuff doesn't get stuffed in your face all the time.)
I think the point is that like all religions, Islam contains in its holy books rationale and justification for many barbaric acts that most Muslims (such as yourself) don't follow.
There is nothing special about Islam in this regard; however, in the modern world Islam happens to be 'It' right now in that it has a large armed and motivated radicalized branch of followers.
This doesn't indict all Muslims in their crime, nor does it indict Islam any more than in indicts any other religion, for better or for worse. All it means is understanding that we're fighting a religious enemy bent on religiously motivated ends.
In fact, fighting this enemy requires the vocal support of peaceful Muslims whose countries are being taken over by these theocrats, those whose livelihoods in Beirut and Baghdad and Karachi and Jakarta are much more at threat than livelihoods in Paris and Madrid and New York City.
That said, I don't have a solution; I don't think anyone does. You can't fight a religion, only people, and you can't blame all followers of a religion for the actions of a subset of that religion (or, as some would have you believe, a non-subset of that religion). All you can do is name your enemy, and when they declare war on you (which they have--they've declared war on civilization, modernity, Muslims and non-Muslims alike), declare war back.
> For each of the points you mentioned I can make a solid case supported by examples that Mohammad was a proponent of peace
Prior to Mohammed, his people lived in a remote, mostly peaceful backwater.
Afterwards, Mohammed terrorized some caravans, gained a few new converts, and conquered Mecca, and then Arabia. Then his friends, followers, and immediate successors, by 661, conquered the Persian empire and made rapid inroads into the Byzantine Empire.
It is very difficult to see how anyone could look at a map in 622 and then a map in 661 and come to the conclusion that Mohammed was a proponent of peace.
Read this a few days ago. So good. Everything I've heard otherwise in the media has been superficial by comparison.
TL;DR ISIS is a doomsday cult analogous to David Koresh's. They interpret the Koran exactly literally and any deviation from it is punishable by death (this includes AQ and all shia for modernization offenses). They believe they are a primary actor in the prophecy that'll bring about the ultimate battle with "Rome" at Dabiq, Syria and the judgement day.
My take is that while modern mainstream Christianity laughed off the Branch Davidians as crazy people who offered nothing, mainstream Sunnis see IS as similarly crazy with the important exception of "well at least they're fighting the Shia". In other words, there is some tacit support for IS based on millennia-old factionalism, (edit: which is how they've grown from a small cult into a significant movement).
An interesting point in the article is that while AQ can hide underground and never be fully eradicated, IS has to maintain land and provide government services under the caliphate to remain legitimate (according to the Koran, of course). This makes it an entirely different enemy that can, in theory, be destroyed.
Further, no peace can ever be negotiated because the borders of IS have to keep expanding or the caliphate is no longer valid. That is, Muhammad says all non-believers have to be converted, full stop.
Anyway, the article is outstanding. Take an hour to read the whole thing.
It does create a non sequitor in my mind that such cults are so implacably opposed to modernisation or adoption of contemporary culture, but will happily fire a captured M16 or fly an Mi-24 in support of their objectives...
> Further, no peace can ever be negotiated because the borders of IS have to keep expanding or the caliphate is no longer valid. That is, Muhammad says all non-believers have to be converted, full stop.
I think a lot of liberal media in the West tends to whitewash some of the, shall we say, more unpleasant actions of Islam's founder described in the Qu'ran (violence, child bride, etc).
However, the assertion that Muhammad said that all non-believers must be converted is false, full stop. There is a very famous verse of the Quran addresses this categorically (in the words of Muhammed as supposedly dictated by God):
Indeed, the entire tax base of most Muslim empires, most notably the Ottoman, was based on taxing non-Muslims (Muslims were exempt from this tax, but had to serve in the military). So the rule against forcible conversions was not only stated clearly in the Qu'ran, but there have been unbroken enforcement of this rule by Muslim empires, kingdoms, and nations from Muhammed's time to the modern era, in a large part because of the incentives those entities had in keeping a large number of non-Muslims to tax. This is not to say that Muslims never forcibly converted people, but it is/was widely recognized as being forbidden by the Quran.
Now, this is a separate matter from expanding borders. The Islamic State surely would love nothing more than to establish a caliphate at the farthest historical borders, so N. African up across Spain, Europe across the Balkans up to Vienna, and all of Central Asia. That said, I can't see them ever expanding beyond the Levant, even in the worst case scenario. Even without a massive Western ground intervention (which would obviously happen if they threatened Spain, if not before), IS would have to conquer Turkey and Iran, and that seems extraordinarily unlikely.
> My take is that while modern mainstream Christianity laughed off the Branch Davidians as crazy people who offered nothing
Much of the contemporary (with the events) right-wing Christian and militia-movement response to the affair with the Davidians was to overtly sympathize with and support the Davidians against the actions of the government. The kind of rejection you describe seems to me to fairly extreme historical revisionism.
Attack the head and albeit slowly the body will wither. Starting point: is there a single person anywhere, with a shred of intellectual credibility, who supports ISIS? The negative answer should be used to publicly paint its followers as the intellectually barren though extremely dangerous barbarians that they are. No need to spell out why this does not happen though properly handled, I think it could.
Such a loaded article (Quote from article "The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. ") making its way to the top of Hacker news (which shuns political articles like the plague) is very troubling to me as a Muslim.
Seems like the Muslims of 2015 are basically moving to the position of the Jews of 1915.
I agree, the focus should be more on the potential perniciousness of unchecked religious fundamentalism in general (it doesn't matter if it's the KKK or ISIS) and middle-east history of the last 15-30 years in particular (why do some people fall for such simplistic, de-humanizing organizations)?
ISIS is essentially a fascist movement and has as little to do with main-stream islamic values as the KKK has with christian ones.
You might find this article on the "why" less simplistic:
I think putting time and effort into these kinds of political and religious discussions is very important as long as we keep a cool and open mind - love and understanding against potential fear and hate towards "others" so to speak. Peace! :)
I agree it is loaded, but after the Paris attacks, people are scared. So I hope you can be understanding at this time.
I went to school with Muslims during 9/11 (not many, but enough that I listened to them). I understand the frustration in your religion being singled out, misinterpreted and so forth.
>Seems like the Muslims of 2015 are basically moving to the position of the Jews of 1915.
Except that the Jews of 1915 were not blowing up, mas-murdering nor terrorizing people, nor were they waging war on non-Jews. Also, Jews were prosecuted throughout the world and eventually deported and/or killed, while Muslims are not in any way.
That is one similarity between Jews and Isis Muslims, they both claim a country based on their religious texts.
I don't know what you try to frame as 'Zionist terrorism'. I am not a fan of many Israeli actions, but as far as I know there were no structural attempts of structurally terrorizing and brutalizing Palastinians by Israel that are in any way similar to what we see Isis doing today.
> I don't know what you try to frame as 'Zionist terrorism'.
Acts of terrorism, including deliberate bombings, gunning down of civilians, etc., carried out by supporters of an independent Jewish state within what was then Mandatory Palestine by groups such as Irgun (a direct linear ancestor of the modern Likud Party.)
> I am not a fan of many Israeli actions, but as far as I know there were no structural attempts of structurally terrorizing and brutalizing Palastinians by Israel
Israel was largely built by people who engaged in terrorizing and brutalizing Palestinians in the name of the goal of creating the State of Israel. (To be fair, there was terrorism on both sides and organized terrorism on the Arab side against the Jewish side started first. But if we accept that targeting innocent civilians for terror is acceptable as long as someone did it to you first, well, most terrorist groups in history could point to someone who they saw as terrorizing the population they purport to represent first, and characterize their own terrorism as retribution against the group from which those attacks came, and supporters and sympathizers.)
>Except that the Jews of 1915 were not blowing up, mas-murdering nor terrorizing people, nor were they waging war on non-Jews.
You are saying that if a small subset of Jews were blowing up, mass-murdering and terrorizing people (which they did during the zionist insurgency, and are also doing today), That means that would justify the persecution of the world's Jews and the general anti-semitic sentiment of the mainstream during that period?
>That means that would justify the persecution of the world's Jews and the general anti-semitic sentiment of the mainstream during that period?
Of course not. But they were persecuted. But the point is: Muslims are not. So your opinion that Muslims are in the same position as the Jews in 1915 is nonsense.
> which they did during the zionist insurgency, and are also doing today
I think that implying that what Israel does today is similar to the barbaric acts of constant mass murdering, ethnic cleansing, torturing, raping and beheading that is done by Isis is absurd.
>So your opinion that Muslims are in the same position
I didn't say we were. I said wewere moving to that position.
> I think that implying that what Israel does today is similar to the barbaric acts of constant mass murdering, ethnic cleansing, torturing, raping and beheading that is done by Isis is absurd
It is absurd and again i didn't imply it.
Here is what you said :
>Except that the Jews of 1915 were not blowing up, mas-murdering nor terrorizing people, nor were they waging war on non-Jews.
and how i paraphrased it
>You are saying that if a small subset of Jews were blowing up, mass-murdering and terrorizing people
We can quibble over terminology, intentions, plausible deniability and collateral damage, but it is hard to deny that at a subset of Israeli actions can be reasonably construed as "blowing up, mass-murdering and terrorizing people".
Again my original point is :
ISIS isn't equal to all muslims
same way zionist insurgent isn't equate to all jews.
Biggest victims of ISIS are muslims. So when you say "Except that the Jews of 1915 were not blowing up, mas-murdering nor terrorizing people, nor were they waging war on non-Jews" you are lumping all muslims together with isis which is frankly dangerous and abhorrent.
Your comment illustrates my original point. The Jews of 1915 were blamed by mainstream for lot of things they didn't do or had little to do with. Muslims as a group are being increasingly blamed for actions of a few people over which they have little/no control.
In case it helps (I'm a moderator at HN), every user who is here in the spirit of intellectual curiosity belongs on HN. That includes our Muslim users as much as all others. We have a large, international community, so tolerance of differences is critical.
It's ok to explore the specifics of a current situation if one does so civilly and substantively. But when someone attacks Islam per se, that is a religious flamewar and we tell them it is not allowed: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=.... The goal is to avoid flamewars, in which vitriol is exceeded only by tedium—the same thing we seek to avoid everywhere.
Since Rumi is no less Islamic than ISIS, the discussions this excludes are not serious. HN can do without puerile generalization, and amateurs with a copy of the Quran and an idée fixe can conduct their exegesis elsewhere.
I'm troubled by it too. There is arguably some merit to exposing the latent bigotry of HN's users --- which, if it helps, is less about Islam specifically and more about Islam's utility in constructing facile arguments about the whole concept of religion --- but I think that merit is far outweighed by the enmity these threads generate.
I think the mods should reconsider whether threads about religion are appropriate for HN. Lots of other totally legitimate discussions aren't legit on HN; for instance, I can talk your ear off about horse-race politics in the US, but am glad that the topic finds no purchase on HN.
As long as there are threads about religion (or, worse, political Islam) on HN, the good-faith users of the site are going to be saddled with the task of trying to flag aggressively uncivil comments out of the threads. It's just too easy to score easy points by snarking about religion. It's hard to keep up, a giant waste of time, and I think pretty dispiriting for everyone involved.
This article misses a major point, which is that there are many sects within Islam, the author (and non-Muslims in general) only know of or acknowledg Sunni vs Shiite, when in fact there more sects that claim to be Muslim than are in Christianity and Judaism combined. The one that ISIL, Al Qaeda, and almost all terrorist groups follow is called Wahhabism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism. To understand what this group preaches you need to know the history of the region. I'll spare the details and just mention that this group was supported by Muhamed bin Saud (the ruling family in Saudi Arsbia which the country is named after). Wahhabism preaches much of what this article describes in the senseless killing of hummens, which what bin Saud needed the justification for when killing the Muslims of the region while rising to power.
They have many devious teachings with deeply rooted evil that true Islam rejects.
Everyone is so caught up in the theological discussion I'm almost wondering if most posters read only half the article before commenting.
In the end I think IS will fail, it's just a question of how and when. There was an article in the New York Times the other day that detailed how little room IS has left to expand without digging into Syria (and facing the Russians), or Turkey (which feels more threatened by the Kurds and uses the instability as a political smokescreen but has more than enough capacity to fight back), or pretty much anywhere else but pockets of Libya. Basically, they only formed and grew so prolifically because their enemies were exceptionally weak and unwilling to fight for sand dunes, let alone the ones that contain oil.
I think the best way to deal with IS is to understand the historical and religious underpinnings to get a sense of why people flock to it, then divorce the religious aspect from the dangerous entity that follows the same rules of economics that everyone is a part of. Starve the state of revenue, undermine its ability to provide for its citizens, and make it clear to supporters of the Islamic State in the Middle East and elsewhere that IS cannot effectively function any better than a Tunisian democracy or an Egyptian dictatorship.
Instead of baiting their desire for an apocalyptic conflagration, slowly drain their strength and appeal. Let supporters across the planet see a strict caliphate in action and how little it accomplishes adter the easy deserts have been claimed. A weak loser that doesn't go anywhere doesn't sound exactly like the fate chosen by God.
Total War has not happened in nearly 80 years... during World War II. And without turning the situation into a "Total War", I find it hard to believe that any solution would take less than decades.
One Hospital gets bombed in Afghanistan and everyone gets their panties in a twist. The modern world does not like seeing "mistakes of war", despite the fact that we in WW2 would send Japanese to internment camps and opened up the American office of censorship.
ISIS is the biggest threat against the Western World today, but does not draw enough bloodlust among the general population. We are too war weary from Iraq and Afghanistan to really commit to a true fight. And I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.
I really don't see how any of this could turn into a "Total War." ISIS is tiny compared to all the nations who now want to see them destroyed. That's why they can only accomplish small, surprise attacks like the ones in Paris. Maybe they are the biggest threat right now, but really, how big of a threat are they?
Revolutionary armed vanguards tend to be small. That doesn't mean they can't have big impacts, or establish dominion over large territories and number of people cowed by the fear of violence (both the fear of violence from the vanguard, and the fear of violence from outsiders who have been turned against the dominated group by the actions of the vanguard.)
85 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] threadMuslim extremists have shown potential to go international, local or underground. Name changes, people change, methods change. Bullshit continues.
ISIS has predicted it's own downfall in near future, so they will appear to be right if they are stripped off land. Given internet is more widespread than ever, Muslims are more widespread than ever and secular Muslim leaders are in tough spot.
Imagine ISIS will turn into international underground terrorist organization like al-quaeda? But with more vengeance, credibility and supporters. To me confiding the problem into poor part of middle east seems like the best option.
It's a more correct theory, I think, to say that the Mujahideen were caused by the invasion of Afghanistan and the support of the CIA in order to mess with the Russians. And we could follow from there.
Islam could be a religion of war or only an excuse that those that want to do war use, I have not the answer. But I feel dismay reading the discussion that there is now in Europe and the States. From the comment sections of HN or the NYT to the discourses of the politics, the majority of the commenters forget to talks about, for instance, why there is a "land of nobody" where the creation of a Caliphate is possible. It's like if Irak, Iran, EUA, Europe, Arabia, Israel has nothing to do with what is going here. As if it all the violence comes from something in the water in the region.
How is it possible that the Islam nature is our main concern?
To those that are so worried about how violent is the Islam I would like to remember that is the destruction of Iraq, Syria, and in general all the area, with uncountable deaths, by the way, what allow those crazy fanatics to be in a position of create a country.
Surely some people would like to excuse all that saying that "mistakes were done". Ok, but, at least, we should talk about those mistakes.
I have absolutely no qualms with Iran, and never had. You could call me nationalist and cultural relativist. I really think any nation should have the option of forming a state. While I really don't agree with some stuff happening in Iran, it's really not my responsibility.
I think the best option would be to have the daesh to transform into Sunni version of Iran. That's not going to fly because everybody is angry with them. But that seems to be the only way how things could realistically settle down in the long run.
However. There is definitely an ideological fight here over what Islam is. I just think it is a separate discussion altogether. I didn't read the article as attempting to do anything but discern the intentions of the state. Could someone explain? I'm having a difficult time not seeing these issues as a projection of fears.
As a lay Muslim, I will give a few examples. The interpretation of correct Islamic creed and behavior according to Sunni Muslims is according to the Qur'an and Hadith as understood by the early Muslims, principally the first four caliphs and some of the closest students of the Prophet, succeeding generations, and four or five schools of law established thereafter. Within these schools, there is debate and re-interpretation. So simply citing a snippet of text to support your position, if it contradicts other texts, established practice, or informed consensus opinion is not going to fly.
For example, Daesh burned a captured Jordanian pilot alive while his tribe and the Jordanian government wanted to have him released under a prisoner exchange. There are specific Hadith and verses to support that prisoners of war can be ransomed or exchanged. More pointedly, there is a well accepted Hadith that burning is specifically prohibited as a punishment for even the severest enemies. This is a well-known Hadith and is accepted by all schools of law. So Daesh not only ignored all the Islamically available options which they might have used, but did an act to further inflame specific Sunni Muslim communities that they claim to defend. Further, they did something which would offend all people ethically and goes against specific Islamic rules.
While slavery in the medieval period was practiced against enemies that would do the same, there has been a consensus among Muslims and non-Muslims alike that this is a thing of the past. Muslim governemnts have signed specific international conventions banning it. Even extremely vile outfits like their predecessors like AQ had never mentioned bringing it back. They however chose to revive it against communities that were not doing this to them.
Sending irregular forces under the guise of a Muslim community which is bound by a legal agreement with a country and endangering said agreement is something that is again prohibited. i.e., the Muslims living in France as citizens or foreigners are under a legal framework of citizenship or diplomatic recognition of Muslim countries wherein they are given legal protection in France in return for obeying French law and not fighting them.
the gist is, They are interpreting things literally without any history and context of what a verse of Quran meant and revealed for, one would argue that should have been fine, but it isn't because it reduces islam to their interpretation.
Arabic is a very diverse language, with tens of meanings for a word (often contradictory) and which one you pick and choose depends upon what type of a person you are, if you are a hate mongering terrorist, you would find those meanings to justify your terror like isis is doing, if you are a peace loving feminist, you would find plenty to justify that (using the same verses). This would mean that their interpretation would depend alot on their socio economic status, the kind of society they live in, the world view they have etc.
People often judge islam by the norms of 6th century arabia, Islam has a evolutionary process in place called ijtihad, which the intolerant people don't seem to use. But if you would have to judge islam, you would have to either assume yourself to be in 6th century to see why they were relevant at that time, or to remove them so to understand the general direction islam gives.
That is an odd definition of "misinterpreting".
Biblical literalists are generally not accused of "misinterpreting" the Christian Bible. They are commonly accused of being antiquated, crazy, or dumb, but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they follow its literal meaning.
It similarly seems incorrect to say ISIS is "misinterpreting Islam" by reading the Koran literally. It may not be the popular interpretation, and it may not be a pleasant interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's an incorrect interpretation.
Christian groups like to accuse each other of misinterpreting the Bible. Church of Christ members say that Catholics have misinterpreted the organization of the church. Catholics say that Baptists have misinterpreted the apocalypse. Etc. These accusations in reality say very little about the validity of the accused's interpretations, and merely serve as a way for the accuser's to assert the correctness of their own interpretations. "Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong" has no more validity than "Your choice of religion is wrong" in general.
Not so hard actually. A correct interpretation of a work is to discern what the author actually intended to communicate. If I say to a coworker "a meteor is about to strike earth, wiping out all life unless we do something about it" and the listener interprets what I say to be a metaphor (perhaps they think that I am trying to say simply that the project we are working on is in danger of falling apart) they may or may not be correct. If I work at an accounting firm, the statement is probably metaphorical; if I work at NASA, probably not.
In any case, determining the meaning of a text depends upon the genre, and to understand that you need context. The main issue that most Christian traditions have with literalists is that they try to interpret the texts without any of the original context, or without any acknowledgement that the Bible is an anthology of different books written by different authors for different purposes.
>It similarly seems incorrect to say ISIS is "misinterpreting Islam" by reading the Koran literally. It may not be the popular interpretation, and it may not be a pleasant interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's an incorrect interpretation.
You're right, it may be a correct interpretation. Understanding the correct interpretation of Islamic texts is important for those deciding how to approach the spread of violent Islamic teachings. Should it be left to Islamic religious leaders who can leverage Islamic texts to spread a more peaceful (and accurate) teaching, or should the focus be to discredit Islam from the outside?
> "Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong" has no more validity than "Your choice of religion is wrong" in general.
Any given religious text was written by a human being to convey a set of ideas an claims. It is no less valid to talk about a correct interpretation of religious texts than it is to talk about the correct interpretation of any other text.
Here you are attempting to equate accuracy with peacefulness, with nothing given to support that link. To be clear, I don't have a strong opinion on whether Islam is a peaceful religion or not. I have not done enough research to be confident in that sort of claim. I do, however, find it disingenuous to claim that the ISIS interpretation is wrong when the only support given for that claim is that it differs from some other muslims' interpretations.
> It is no less valid to talk about a correct interpretation of religious texts than it is to talk about the correct interpretation of any other text.
Sure, it's reasonable and valid to say "Here's a thing ISIS believes about Islam. Here is the context around that thing. And here is the reason ISIS is wrong." That's not what's happening here, though. This is more like "Here's a thing ISIS believes. I promise you that there is some context that makes them wrong. See, other Muslims agree that ISIS is wrong."
I made no such equivocation, though I apologize if I was unclear.
My point was that the strategy Western countries should take towards addressing violent Islamic sects depends upon what the correct interpretation of their religious texts is. If the moderates are correct in their interpretation, it would be better to let them convince the radicals because they would have greater common ground, and the "home court advantage" in interpreting their texts.
> I do, however, find it disingenuous to claim that the ISIS interpretation is wrong when the only support given for that claim is that it differs from some other muslims' interpretations.
I completely agree. I also do not know what the correct interpretation is, though it is becoming increasingly clear that I should probably learn.
I think we have been arguing at cross-purposes. I thought you were claiming that "all interpretations are equally valid" or something like that. It seems now that you are arguing that "ISIS's interpretation isn't necessarily invalid just because moderate Muslims say it is". If that is your point, then I agree with you and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
In which case, your reply to the grandparent comment makes more sense. I've done a little bit of studying ancient texts in the original language (with help from classicists and theologians) and while the nuances in these ancient languages allow for multiple levels of meaning, it emphatically does not mean that you can interpret whatever you want into the texts.
It seems that way.
> It seems now that you are arguing that "ISIS's interpretation isn't necessarily invalid just because moderate Muslims say it is".
Essentially, yes. It's hard to say that someone is right in their religious interpretation, based just on how much disagreement there is, but that's not the same as saying all interpretations are equally valid.
If someone claims that Jesus commanded his followers to kill nonbelievers, that's a pretty problematic interpretation of the Bible. On the other hand, if one person says Jesus established the system of popes and another person disagrees, it's really difficult to that one of these interpretations is objectively better, even though the difference in interpretation is pretty significant.
> If that is your point, then I agree with you and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
No apologies necessary. You made a civil response to my comment and (we thought) we disagreed. If only all discussions online were like this. :)
A "correct interpretation" of a book written by a dead author is, in essence, an oxymoron. I would argue that this point is not debatable.
All modern Christian bibles are many generations of interpretation from the original text. I would presume the same to be true of the Quran (though it's a bit younger, so perhaps it's had slightly fewer generations of interpretation than the christian bible).
There is no "correct interpretation" of Shakespeare's works (which are arguably true to their original writing in our current records of them), and they're only 400 years old. How can we possibly presume there is a "correct interpretation" of a text that's ostensibly 1400 years old?
I know I'm late to the party in this thread, but still - "correct interpretation" is just not a thing with literary works, regardless of whom you attribute them to.
No worries. I'm glad to continue the discussion as I think it is important.
> A "correct interpretation" of a book written by a dead author is, in essence, an oxymoron. I would argue that this point is not debatable.
Let's take the Shakespeare example, as I think it is a good example and less likely to cause strife.
What is the purpose of Romeo and Juliet? Was it written to be a non-fiction historical account of politics in Renaissance Verona, or was it supposed to be a fictional drama meant primarily to entertain its audience?
It seems obvious to me that this question is meaningful, and even has an objectively correct answer. That is, there is a correct interpretation as to the purpose of Romeo and Juliet that we can glean from a combination of the text itself as well as the historical information about the context it was written in - Shakespeare's current vital signs notwithstanding. Wherein lies the oxymoron?
No, its not an oxymoron, any more than "correct interpretation" is always an oxymoron; a living author doesn't even necessarily make it easier to identify the correct interpretation, since individuals are not static, and the author's preferred interpretation at a later time may not reflect their intent when they wrote the text.
Yes, they are. This has been a discussion for millenia. Many people will definitely consider their interpretation incorrect, or absurd.
The biblical literalists are not wrong when they say that the Bible tells them that God created Earth in 6 days. That is what it says. The more common "metaphorical interpretation" is more recent than the acceptance as a true origin story.
Yes, it is trivially true, by definition, that the only people who say that someone has an incorrect interpretation is people who would portray a different interpretation is correct. That's what saying an interpretation is incorrect means.
When I said it's "hard to accuse someone of misinterpreting...", I meant that it's hard to accuse them in a convincing or sound manner. Obviously it's easy to accuse anyone of basically anything. You just open your mouth and make the accusation. But to do so convincingly takes effort beyond "I don't like their interpretation so they must be wrong". The literal interpretation actually seems like the default, and any other interpretation demands support.
Yes, they are. Particularly by other Christians.
> but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they follow its literal meaning.
No, its quite easy: outside of the context of religion, we see it all the time when people are accused of misinterpreting something by treating either one-off metaphors or colloquial figures of speech as if their meaning was what is suggested by the literal meanings of the individual words. Or when one of many possible literal meaning (words often have more than one nonfigurative meaning) is chosen, despite the fact that the context (possibly very broad context) suggests a different interpretation, whether a different literal interpretation or a nonliteral one.
Its no harder to accuse people of misinterpretation for pursuing a particular literal interpretation when the thing being misinterpreted is a religious text.
You're making my point for me. Yes, some Christians accuse biblical literalists of misinterpreting the Bible. But Christian groups frequently assert that other Christian groups are wrong for many, many reasons. There's generally little compelling reason to take any of them as "more correct", though. It's just one group arguing that their religion is more correct than someone else's religion. It's not one group interpreting correctly and the other group misinterpreting. It's just two (or more) groups that disagree, and they typically have no sound reason to assert their beliefs over others'.
> No, its quite easy: outside of the context of religion...
Sure, it's easy when you can provide a reason that the literal interpretation is wrong. It's not easy when the reason is just that you don't like the literal interpretation (or it's easy but not valid).
That's frequently the case with criticism of biblical literalism. While, certainly, the people making the criticism have different interpretations that they prefer as correct (that is, obviously, what it means to say that an interpretation is wrong), and those that care enough about an interpretation to challenge another as incorrect are generally people for whom their preferred interpretation is also an element of the their religious belief and not just a more casual opinion, there are quite specific reasons given for challenges both to specific literal interpretations and to the doctrine of literalism itself (for the latter, the existence of flat-out contradictions within the canon when interpreted literally is one of the more common.)
In my experience that is rarely the case. The reasons given are generally only compelling to others who already hold the same beliefs. If you're arguing against biblical literalism to others who consider the bible to be metaphorical, you will of course be successful. If you're arguing with a biblical literalist, you'll find that they fail to see the logic in your arguments. If you're arguing with a non-Christian, they'll likely just not care, but they might also find your arguments no more convincing than those of the literalist.
> for the latter, the existence of flat-out contradictions within the canon when interpreted literally is one of the more common.
This is only compelling if you start with the axiom that the bible (or whatever text) is correct. If you start with that, and then add contradictions, then the only way to resolve the discrepancy is to say that the bible is metaphorical. If you don't take correctness as an axiom, it's quite reasonable to say that the bible is mostly if not completely literal but that parts of it are simply wrong. It's not a question of correctness of interpretation, then, so much as a question of correctness of the canon.
Which would perhaps be a serious problem with criticizing biblical literalism with that argument if the literalism being criticized ever failed to included a strong form of inerrantism; since, as a doctrine, Biblical literalism is always tied to strong-form inerrantism (which is the axiom that the Bible is, in every particular, both moral and factual, correct), and subsidiary doctrines on matters of fact and/or morals can only be derived from it through its intersection with inerrantism, it really isn't a problem that challenges to literalism rely on arguments that are valid in the presence of inerrantism.
> If you don't take correctness as an axiom
Without inerrantism, whether something is a correct or incorrect interpretation of the Bible doesn't have any significance. Literalism or not only has any meaning in the context of inerrantism.
(http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file...)
(http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file...)
"What I Discovered From Interviewing Imprisoned ISIS Fighters."
http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-inte...
"To Defeat ISIS, We Must Call Both Western and Muslim Leaders to Account"
http://www.thenation.com/article/we-cannot-defeat-isis-witho...
I don't agree with the parent article. They are basically parroting the official stance of ISIS which has been covered (in a much better way)before : http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/anne-speckhard/isis-iraq_b_5...
Yes. ISIS has cultivated a doomsday cult through their propaganda machine. ISIS wants to be seen by the world as a doomsday cult, and all their propaganda is aimed at this.
But ISIS's actions in the past have not matched their propaganda. For example why is an organisation that claim's to adhere to Salafist fundamentalist principles, in war with pretty much every Salafist faction in Syria?During 2013 - mid 2014, they were in a truce with Assad's government. At the time they almost exclusively attacked Rebel outfits. Many groups including the Syrian Observatory kept claiming that several major ISIS offensives on rebels, were often preceeded by airstrikes from the Syrian govt indicating coordination and cooperation.
The truth is that ISIS is a purely opportunistic faction that won't allow any moral or even religious considerations from getting in the way of its ambitions.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean that all of ISIS is like that. It could be that such men as Bakr were instrumental in getting things started, but those brought in to provide religious pretense eventually became the more powerful faction.
Also, I don't see how temporary alliances with a secular regime indicate lack of true religious conviction. If making temporary, strategic alliances with Assad and fighting agianst the Syrian rebels was plainly hypocritical, I would think that would staunch the flow of true believers to their ranks. And while we may debate whether or not ISIS is the haven of belief it portrays itself to be, I don't think we can question that there are many, many people on the outside that it successfully recruits because they believe it to be that. Which requires at least that the hypocrisy not be blatantly obvious.
Group C that claims to be defenders of group A against group B, secretly allies itself with B against A. How does that not indicate lack of religious conviction. The general narrative of ISIS, is that they are the most strictest in adherence to medieval Islam. But to me it looks that they are the most flexible in their adherence in favour of tactical pragmatism.
>"staunch the flow of true believers to their ranks."
What makes you think that the majority of followers of ISIS is attracting are true believers?
Looking at the profiles of the foreigners who are joining : Coulibaly who attacked the french supermarket was previously arrested on drug offences: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/09/amedy-coulibaly-par...
Abaaoud, the alleged mastermind of the current attacks, was previously jailed for theft and assault : http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/world/europe/belgium-confr...
According to the Sun (admittedly less reliable source; make of it what you will) Jihadi John was into drugs, and alcohol. By other accounts he was rebellious, socially isolated, and on the wayward side of society.
Most of the people recruited seem to follow a pattern of rebelliousness, impulsiveness, poor decisions (frequently involving drugs, jailtime, etc.), rather than sever religiosity through years of attending madrasas. In the west people of a similar disposition might find themselves joining gangs, or in a downward spiral of hard drugs, or making other poor decisions. The ones with the most severe prognosis might end up as school shooters, or doing hard time. ISIS has set itself as a cult to attract such people and has given them a cause.
Quote from former AQ member turned informant : http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31700894 "There is no single process of radicalisation. Some people, it took them years to be convinced of coming to the jihad and some people it took them minutes. Some people were studying in religious seminaries - they're a minority by the way - and then decided to come and some people basically just came straight out of a night club you know while he was consuming alcohol basically to come and seek redemption there in the jihadist world. So you know you see immediately that you know there isn't one single classical journey there, that there are so many journeys."
There are many scattered reports of defections by disillusioned members, but we won't probably know the real truth until after the conflict. Of course, one doesn't simply cash in their last paycheck and walk away from such an organisation, so even if there were mass defections it would be in secret because of fear for safety of them and their families.
[1]http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm
Which battle are you referring to?
edit: Perhaps the Battle of the Trench.
If so, your comment is misleading. The Jews were forced into a surrender after having betrayed their former muslim allies in favour of the confederates.
From wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench) :
"Following the retreat of the Confederate army, the Banu Qurayza neighbourhoods were besieged by the Muslims, in revenge for their treachery. After a 25-day siege of their neighbourhood the Banu Qurayza unconditionally surrendered. When the Banu Qurayza tribe surrendered, the Muslim army seized their stronghold and their possessions.[29] On the request of the Banu Aus, who were allied to the Qurayza, Muhammad chose one of them, Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh, as an arbitrator to pronounce judgment upon them. Sa'ad, who would later die of his wounds from the battle, decreed the sentence according to the Torah, in which the men shall be killed and women and children enslaved.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 says:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. [30]
Muhammad approved of this decision, and the next day the sentence was carried out."
>Then they surrendered, and the Apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the Apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the Apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the Apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the Apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off.
This actually says that Mohammed himself beheaded the Jews, but even if he didn't, he allowed it to happen. Thus, ISIS follow this same pattern.
Judaism is not about emulating Abraham, David, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, or Isaac all of whom did at least some of the terrible things you mention. So why do you presume to speak for Islam, rather than listen to the vast, overwhelming majority of its followers?
Many people feel the need to believe in something which extends beyond physical reality and that's the reason we have freedom of religion.
Time again history has shown though that religions often tend to go overboard in terms of violence so most modern societies have taken a pragmatic approach to offer freedom of religion under certain checks (i.e. not infringing on the freedoms of others from a secular perspective).
That said Einstein believed in god so don't belittle someone because of their religion and most importantly don't let fear take over your humanity (most people never got asked if they wanted to be "a muslim", "a christian" or "a jew").
What we need is more dialogue, not wars - those usually just create even more suffering and pain.
Talk to people - especially to the ones you don't feel comfortable talking to - we are all together on this pale blue dot.
In the sense that one cannot simultaneously hold the following two sets of beliefs:
Religion: knowledge by authority, submission to authority, authority by appeal to ex-human grantor, otherwise ignorance until submission before authority
Democracy: knowledge by inalienable and intrinsic human nature, authority as composed of the will of individuals, pluralism as a path to better decisions for the whole society
I personally believe religion is a powerful force for good in the world. But, if we're being really honest, a lot of times that's because of the stuff we're leaving out or bending rather than the strict interpretation.
Maybe, or maybe not. Anyway religions have no inherent meaning external from the way in which they're practiced and understood by their practitioners.
What I'd like you to expand on is: what do the distinctions you're making in your argument entail (w/r/t public policy or just personal behavior)?
As a peaceful, tolerant and rational Muslim, the likes of which somehow manage to exist in spite of the purported bad example of the man we strive to follow, I just want to put this out there not to leave your comment undisputed, in case there are people who are not knowledgeable about the topic. I don't have time for a treatise but as I said, there are more sides to every story, so do your own research.
(On an unrelated note I flagged this story, since sigh HN is one of the few places where this stuff doesn't get stuffed in your face all the time.)
There is nothing special about Islam in this regard; however, in the modern world Islam happens to be 'It' right now in that it has a large armed and motivated radicalized branch of followers.
This doesn't indict all Muslims in their crime, nor does it indict Islam any more than in indicts any other religion, for better or for worse. All it means is understanding that we're fighting a religious enemy bent on religiously motivated ends.
In fact, fighting this enemy requires the vocal support of peaceful Muslims whose countries are being taken over by these theocrats, those whose livelihoods in Beirut and Baghdad and Karachi and Jakarta are much more at threat than livelihoods in Paris and Madrid and New York City.
That said, I don't have a solution; I don't think anyone does. You can't fight a religion, only people, and you can't blame all followers of a religion for the actions of a subset of that religion (or, as some would have you believe, a non-subset of that religion). All you can do is name your enemy, and when they declare war on you (which they have--they've declared war on civilization, modernity, Muslims and non-Muslims alike), declare war back.
I feel like the Church of England and the Eastern Orthodox Church would disagree with you (and Batman). Ideas can be fought just the same as people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Great_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England#Secession_fr...
Prior to Mohammed, his people lived in a remote, mostly peaceful backwater.
Afterwards, Mohammed terrorized some caravans, gained a few new converts, and conquered Mecca, and then Arabia. Then his friends, followers, and immediate successors, by 661, conquered the Persian empire and made rapid inroads into the Byzantine Empire.
It is very difficult to see how anyone could look at a map in 622 and then a map in 661 and come to the conclusion that Mohammed was a proponent of peace.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10588101 and marked it off-topic.
TL;DR ISIS is a doomsday cult analogous to David Koresh's. They interpret the Koran exactly literally and any deviation from it is punishable by death (this includes AQ and all shia for modernization offenses). They believe they are a primary actor in the prophecy that'll bring about the ultimate battle with "Rome" at Dabiq, Syria and the judgement day.
My take is that while modern mainstream Christianity laughed off the Branch Davidians as crazy people who offered nothing, mainstream Sunnis see IS as similarly crazy with the important exception of "well at least they're fighting the Shia". In other words, there is some tacit support for IS based on millennia-old factionalism, (edit: which is how they've grown from a small cult into a significant movement).
An interesting point in the article is that while AQ can hide underground and never be fully eradicated, IS has to maintain land and provide government services under the caliphate to remain legitimate (according to the Koran, of course). This makes it an entirely different enemy that can, in theory, be destroyed.
Further, no peace can ever be negotiated because the borders of IS have to keep expanding or the caliphate is no longer valid. That is, Muhammad says all non-believers have to be converted, full stop.
Anyway, the article is outstanding. Take an hour to read the whole thing.
I think a lot of liberal media in the West tends to whitewash some of the, shall we say, more unpleasant actions of Islam's founder described in the Qu'ran (violence, child bride, etc).
However, the assertion that Muhammad said that all non-believers must be converted is false, full stop. There is a very famous verse of the Quran addresses this categorically (in the words of Muhammed as supposedly dictated by God):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256
Indeed, the entire tax base of most Muslim empires, most notably the Ottoman, was based on taxing non-Muslims (Muslims were exempt from this tax, but had to serve in the military). So the rule against forcible conversions was not only stated clearly in the Qu'ran, but there have been unbroken enforcement of this rule by Muslim empires, kingdoms, and nations from Muhammed's time to the modern era, in a large part because of the incentives those entities had in keeping a large number of non-Muslims to tax. This is not to say that Muslims never forcibly converted people, but it is/was widely recognized as being forbidden by the Quran.
Now, this is a separate matter from expanding borders. The Islamic State surely would love nothing more than to establish a caliphate at the farthest historical borders, so N. African up across Spain, Europe across the Balkans up to Vienna, and all of Central Asia. That said, I can't see them ever expanding beyond the Levant, even in the worst case scenario. Even without a massive Western ground intervention (which would obviously happen if they threatened Spain, if not before), IS would have to conquer Turkey and Iran, and that seems extraordinarily unlikely.
Much of the contemporary (with the events) right-wing Christian and militia-movement response to the affair with the Davidians was to overtly sympathize with and support the Davidians against the actions of the government. The kind of rejection you describe seems to me to fairly extreme historical revisionism.
he Atlantic concludes that ISIS = Islam, while The Nation concludes that it's just another group of poor, abused people. http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-inte...
Seems like the Muslims of 2015 are basically moving to the position of the Jews of 1915.
I agree, the focus should be more on the potential perniciousness of unchecked religious fundamentalism in general (it doesn't matter if it's the KKK or ISIS) and middle-east history of the last 15-30 years in particular (why do some people fall for such simplistic, de-humanizing organizations)?
ISIS is essentially a fascist movement and has as little to do with main-stream islamic values as the KKK has with christian ones.
You might find this article on the "why" less simplistic:
http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-inte...
I think putting time and effort into these kinds of political and religious discussions is very important as long as we keep a cool and open mind - love and understanding against potential fear and hate towards "others" so to speak. Peace! :)
I went to school with Muslims during 9/11 (not many, but enough that I listened to them). I understand the frustration in your religion being singled out, misinterpreted and so forth.
Except that the Jews of 1915 were not blowing up, mas-murdering nor terrorizing people, nor were they waging war on non-Jews. Also, Jews were prosecuted throughout the world and eventually deported and/or killed, while Muslims are not in any way.
Concluding, it is not alike in any way.
Yeah, the rise in Zionist terrorism in Palestine was about 20 years after that.
I don't know what you try to frame as 'Zionist terrorism'. I am not a fan of many Israeli actions, but as far as I know there were no structural attempts of structurally terrorizing and brutalizing Palastinians by Israel that are in any way similar to what we see Isis doing today.
Acts of terrorism, including deliberate bombings, gunning down of civilians, etc., carried out by supporters of an independent Jewish state within what was then Mandatory Palestine by groups such as Irgun (a direct linear ancestor of the modern Likud Party.)
> I am not a fan of many Israeli actions, but as far as I know there were no structural attempts of structurally terrorizing and brutalizing Palastinians by Israel
Israel was largely built by people who engaged in terrorizing and brutalizing Palestinians in the name of the goal of creating the State of Israel. (To be fair, there was terrorism on both sides and organized terrorism on the Arab side against the Jewish side started first. But if we accept that targeting innocent civilians for terror is acceptable as long as someone did it to you first, well, most terrorist groups in history could point to someone who they saw as terrorizing the population they purport to represent first, and characterize their own terrorism as retribution against the group from which those attacks came, and supporters and sympathizers.)
You are saying that if a small subset of Jews were blowing up, mass-murdering and terrorizing people (which they did during the zionist insurgency, and are also doing today), That means that would justify the persecution of the world's Jews and the general anti-semitic sentiment of the mainstream during that period?
Of course not. But they were persecuted. But the point is: Muslims are not. So your opinion that Muslims are in the same position as the Jews in 1915 is nonsense.
> which they did during the zionist insurgency, and are also doing today
I think that implying that what Israel does today is similar to the barbaric acts of constant mass murdering, ethnic cleansing, torturing, raping and beheading that is done by Isis is absurd.
I didn't say we were. I said wewere moving to that position.
> I think that implying that what Israel does today is similar to the barbaric acts of constant mass murdering, ethnic cleansing, torturing, raping and beheading that is done by Isis is absurd
It is absurd and again i didn't imply it. Here is what you said :
>Except that the Jews of 1915 were not blowing up, mas-murdering nor terrorizing people, nor were they waging war on non-Jews.
and how i paraphrased it
>You are saying that if a small subset of Jews were blowing up, mass-murdering and terrorizing people
We can quibble over terminology, intentions, plausible deniability and collateral damage, but it is hard to deny that at a subset of Israeli actions can be reasonably construed as "blowing up, mass-murdering and terrorizing people".
Again my original point is :
ISIS isn't equal to all muslims same way zionist insurgent isn't equate to all jews.
Biggest victims of ISIS are muslims. So when you say "Except that the Jews of 1915 were not blowing up, mas-murdering nor terrorizing people, nor were they waging war on non-Jews" you are lumping all muslims together with isis which is frankly dangerous and abhorrent.
Your comment illustrates my original point. The Jews of 1915 were blamed by mainstream for lot of things they didn't do or had little to do with. Muslims as a group are being increasingly blamed for actions of a few people over which they have little/no control.
It's ok to explore the specifics of a current situation if one does so civilly and substantively. But when someone attacks Islam per se, that is a religious flamewar and we tell them it is not allowed: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=.... The goal is to avoid flamewars, in which vitriol is exceeded only by tedium—the same thing we seek to avoid everywhere.
Since Rumi is no less Islamic than ISIS, the discussions this excludes are not serious. HN can do without puerile generalization, and amateurs with a copy of the Quran and an idée fixe can conduct their exegesis elsewhere.
I think the mods should reconsider whether threads about religion are appropriate for HN. Lots of other totally legitimate discussions aren't legit on HN; for instance, I can talk your ear off about horse-race politics in the US, but am glad that the topic finds no purchase on HN.
As long as there are threads about religion (or, worse, political Islam) on HN, the good-faith users of the site are going to be saddled with the task of trying to flag aggressively uncivil comments out of the threads. It's just too easy to score easy points by snarking about religion. It's hard to keep up, a giant waste of time, and I think pretty dispiriting for everyone involved.
In the end I think IS will fail, it's just a question of how and when. There was an article in the New York Times the other day that detailed how little room IS has left to expand without digging into Syria (and facing the Russians), or Turkey (which feels more threatened by the Kurds and uses the instability as a political smokescreen but has more than enough capacity to fight back), or pretty much anywhere else but pockets of Libya. Basically, they only formed and grew so prolifically because their enemies were exceptionally weak and unwilling to fight for sand dunes, let alone the ones that contain oil.
I think the best way to deal with IS is to understand the historical and religious underpinnings to get a sense of why people flock to it, then divorce the religious aspect from the dangerous entity that follows the same rules of economics that everyone is a part of. Starve the state of revenue, undermine its ability to provide for its citizens, and make it clear to supporters of the Islamic State in the Middle East and elsewhere that IS cannot effectively function any better than a Tunisian democracy or an Egyptian dictatorship.
Instead of baiting their desire for an apocalyptic conflagration, slowly drain their strength and appeal. Let supporters across the planet see a strict caliphate in action and how little it accomplishes adter the easy deserts have been claimed. A weak loser that doesn't go anywhere doesn't sound exactly like the fate chosen by God.
Total War has not happened in nearly 80 years... during World War II. And without turning the situation into a "Total War", I find it hard to believe that any solution would take less than decades.
One Hospital gets bombed in Afghanistan and everyone gets their panties in a twist. The modern world does not like seeing "mistakes of war", despite the fact that we in WW2 would send Japanese to internment camps and opened up the American office of censorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship
ISIS is the biggest threat against the Western World today, but does not draw enough bloodlust among the general population. We are too war weary from Iraq and Afghanistan to really commit to a true fight. And I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=What%20ISIS%20Really%20Wants&s...
Indeed, by HN's criteria the current thread is a dupe. But we won't kill it, since discussion is ongoing.