Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

Honestly all the Abrahamic religions are problematic and include a variety of nods to barbaric views. The sooner we can admit this the better. There are good members of all those religions, in fact you could argue most Muslims/Christians/Jews/etc are peaceful. But that doesn't change the fact that their religious texts feature all sorts of ugly shit.

 

[BajiBoxer]

Well creationists would also call themselves true believers but do we have views from sane people saying you know maybe they could be right or giving their opinion any weight ?

What are you talking about? I think you totally misread the article.

 

[RustyNails]

The author basically endorses ISIS' understanding of Islam simply because they have shady characters acting as hate preachers in their midst such as the magnificent "sheikh" Anjem Choudhary, never giving no mind to the ocean of counter-ISIS declarations by extremely well known and well respected sheikhs and scholars of Islam, including the foremost respected authority in Sunni Islam like Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah, the most prominent scholar of Islam in United States Sheikh Hamza Yusuf and Yasir Qadhi. Every authority in the majority adherants of Islam have denounced ISIS' ideology, from the Grand Mosque in Makkah to the grand halls of Al Azhar, from shores of America to shores of Mauritania. But, lets ignore all of this and listen to Anjem Choudary, the preachers that are like him, and his band of misfits have to say about Islam, thereby giving "legitimate" platform for ISIS' ideology in order to prove a point. It is then only courtesy at this point from the author to talk about occupation of Middle East as the "only solution".

 

[BajiBoxer]

The author basically endorses ISIS' understanding of Islam

No, the author doesn't.

 

[Yagharek]

That's how he views islam is in his view. Which makes this an Op Ed as his view not facts

Are you still playing the No True Scotsman card?

ISIS are Islamic, or one manifestation if it. Of course there are also countless other good manifestations of it, as with every other religion or philosophy. But claiming ISIS do not have roots in one form of the religion is ignoring the context of where they come from and what rationale their ideology is based in.

 

[ponpo]

Every authority in the majority adherants of Islam have denounced ISIS' ideology, from the Grand Mosque in Makkah to the grand halls of Al Azhar, from shores of America to shores of Mauritania. But, lets ignore all of this and listen to Anjem Choudary, the preachers that are like him, and his band of misfits have to say about Islam, thereby giving "legitimate" platform for ISIS' ideology in order to prove a point. It is then only courtesy at this point from the author to talk about occupation of Middle East as the "only solution".

Where does the other say that the only solution is to occupy the Middle East?

And yet the risks of escalation are enormous. The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself. The provocative videos, in which a black-hooded executioner addresses President Obama by name, are clearly made to draw America into the fight. An invasion would be a huge propaganda victory for jihadists worldwide: irrespective of whether they have given baya’a to the caliph, they all believe that the United States wants to embark on a modern-day Crusade and kill Muslims. Yet another invasion and occupation would confirm that suspicion, and bolster recruitment. Add the incompetence of our previous efforts as occupiers, and we have reason for reluctance. The rise of ISIS, after all, happened only because our previous occupation created space for Zarqawi and his followers. Who knows the consequences of another botched job?

Properly contained, the Islamic State is likely to be its own undoing. No country is its ally, and its ideology ensures that this will remain the case. The land it controls, while expansive, is mostly uninhabited and poor. As it stagnates or slowly shrinks, its claim that it is the engine of God’s will and the agent of apocalypse will weaken, and fewer believers will arrive. And as more reports of misery within it leak out, radical Islamist movements elsewhere will be discredited: No one has tried harder to implement strict Sharia by violence. This is what it looks like.

The only thing it mentions is a ground invasion if something unlikely happened such as the combining of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and even that scenario is far from "occupy the Middle East" so not sure what you're referring to.

 

[Azih]

And you have no authority over what 'Islam' is.

I have full authority over what my faith is. Unless of course Islam really is the one true faith in which case only God does. The Prof is neither.

 

[Terra Firma]

What a shoddy article, only fueling confirmation bias for those who already hate Islam. It only serves to place Daesh within the circle of Islamic theology, validating their beliefs.

As for someone who brought up credentials, there is not a single major scholar in the Muslim world that endorses Daesh. Not from any of the major sects and groups of Islam. Being an orientalist is not enough to be considered any authority in matters relating to Islam, as far as Muslims are concerned.

Bernard Haykel's statement can be applied to ANY group. You can apply that to that Atheist who murdered three Muslims. You can apply it to the LRA in Africa. You can even apply it to Nazis.

You know that an article is piss poor when even theNational Review picks up on it and deems it "the most important article [they have] yet read about ISIS and Islam."

 

[ponpo]

Bernard Haykel's statement can be applied to ANY group. You can apply that to that Atheist who murdered three Muslims. You can apply it to the LRA in Africa. You can even apply it to Nazis.

But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required."

What part of the atheism 'religion' has "historically and legally required" the murdering of Muslims?

 

[RustyNails]

Where does the other say that the only solution is to occupy the Middle East?





The only thing it mentions is a ground invasion if something unlikely happened such as the combining of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and even that scenario is far from "occupy the Middle East" so not sure what you're referring to.

You quoted him yourself:

One way to un-cast the Islamic State’s spell over its adherents would be to overpower it militarily and occupy the parts of Syria and Iraq now under caliphate rule. Al‑Qaeda is ineradicable because it can survive, cockroach-like, by going underground. The Islamic State cannot. If it loses its grip on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it will cease to be a caliphate. Caliphates cannot exist as underground movements, because territorial authority is a requirement: take away its command of territory, and all those oaths of allegiance are no longer binding.

 

[speculawyer]

The author basically endorses ISIS' understanding of Islam simply because they have shady characters acting as hate preachers in their midst such as the magnificent "sheikh" Anjem Choudhary, never giving no mind to the ocean of counter-ISIS declarations by extremely well known and well respected sheikhs and scholars of Islam, including the foremost respected authority in Sunni Islam like Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah, the most prominent scholar of Islam in United States Sheikh Hamza Yusuf and Yasir Qadhi. Every authority in the majority adherants of Islam have denounced ISIS' ideology, from the Grand Mosque in Makkah to the grand halls of Al Azhar, from shores of America to shores of Mauritania. But, lets ignore all of this and listen to Anjem Choudary, the preachers that are like him, and his band of misfits have to say about Islam, thereby giving "legitimate" platform for ISIS' ideology in order to prove a point. It is then only courtesy at this point from the author to talk about occupation of Middle East as the "only solution".

Does argument by authority work? If so, can't we just read the Koran and get what it means from that since isn't god the ultimate authority?

And don't tell me I need someone to explain it to me because I'm pretty sure God can write in a clean manner that anyone can understand.

 

[Brakke]

You know that an article is piss poor when even theNational Review picks up on it and deems it "the most important article [they have] yet read about ISIS and Islam."

Yeah this is what had me worried about the article. Real easy to take the wrong thing away. ISIS understands itself to be Islam but Islam isn't ISIS.

I didn't know about the apocalyptic stuff though. Drawing out their cosmology was interesting.

Does argument by authority work? If so, can't we just read the Koran and get what it means from that since isn't god the ultimate authority?

And don't tell me I need someone to explain it to me because I'm pretty sure God can write in a clean manner that anyone can understand.

Religions aren't texts. Different sects happen because different preachers emphasize different parts of the text. Some things you take literally, some metaphorically. You won't know ISIS's Islam by reading the book, you need to know what they preach, what they come back to, what extra-textual material they go to.

 

[ponpo]

You quoted him yourself:

Keep reading. Saying an occupation is "one way" to do something, then recommending against it, is definitely not a recommendation as the "only solution".

 

[| Praxis |]

I have full authority over what my faith is. Unless of course Islam really is the one true faith in which case only God does. The Prof is neither.

You really don't though do you? Just because yourself and the majority choose to follow your chosen religion in peace, doesn't mean the guy down the street interprets the same messages.

Discussing the problem, without resorting to religious sensitivity is the only way we can try and sort this out, and just because it's being discussed does not mean people are putting IS's views on an equal footing with the majorities.

 

[Trey]

Honestly all the Abrahamic religions are problematic and include a variety of nods to barbaric views. The sooner we can admit this the better. There are good members of all those religions, in fact you could argue most Muslims/Christians/Jews/etc are peaceful. But that doesn't change the fact that their religious texts feature all sorts of ugly shit.

Focus on the religion first, then move on to all the other reasons humans kill other humans.

 

[Valhelm]

The article is wrong. The last religious war in Europe ended in 1995.

 

[speculawyer]

Are you still playing the No True Scotsman card?

It never ends.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

Instead of arguing about how Islamic IS are or aren't, we should simply ask ourselves, "Are we convinced they believe what they say?" I think, at this point, it would be unreasonable to say, "no."

If we can agree on that, we can start talking about how to deal with them.

 

[Lemaitre]

Does argument by authority work? If so, can't we just read the Koran and get what it means from that since isn't god the ultimate authority?

And don't tell me I need someone to explain it to me because I'm pretty sure God can write in a clean manner that anyone can understand.

The way the Islamic tradition has worked for centuries is that there have always been learned scholars who have studied for years (under other scholars) in order to issue necessary jurisprudence or interpretations of the Quran. The problem that Islam is facing today is a relatively modern development.

With the advent of Wahhabism (Wahhabi himself was not a scholar) people took this as an opportunity to disregard the years of schooling that is necessary for issuing opinions on the Quran. For instance, many of these extremest groups today declare many Muslims takfir, and thus excommunicate them because they are not following ideals of Islam that these unlearned ignoramuses espouse.

And yet, for most of Islamic history the practice of excommunication was never instituted, even at the most heated times of disagreement and in times of war between feuding Muslim groups. Yet, the practice of takfir is what rationalizes the deaths of many Muslims today for these many extremist groups, ISIS included.

 

[Brakke]

Discussing the problem, without resorting to religious sensitivity is the only way we can try and sort this out, and just because it's being discussed does not mean people are putting IS's views on an equal footing with the majorities.

Lots of people are doing this. Lots of people with power and with guns do this.

Instead of arguing about how Islamic IS are or aren't, we should simply ask ourselves, "Are we convinced they believe what they say?" I think, at this point, it would be unreasonable to say, "no."

If we can agree on that, we can start talking about how to deal with them.

Yeah I agree. I hadn't heard their apocalyptic aspirations before so that part of the article was interesting to me.

 

[Messofanego]

Does the article speak of Saudi Arabia Wahabbism since that was the origin of Al Qaeda, Taliban, and ISIS?

Good documentary on the leadup to how they all tie together, Bitter Lake [youtube].

 

[RustyNails]

Does argument by authority work? If so, can't we just read the Koran and get what it means from that since isn't god the ultimate authority?

No, you absolutely cannot. Read a chapter in the book and tell me you completely understood what it was talking about, who it was addressing to. No googling.

 

[Jonnax]

I have full authority over what my faith is. Unless of course Islam really is the one true faith in which case only God does. The Prof is neither.

Did you read the entire article? Because your comment makes no sense at all within the context of that article. This professor did not write the article, they are only quoted in one part.

 

[ponpo]

Does the article speak of Saudi Arabia Wahabbism since that was the origin of Al Qaeda, Taliban, and ISIS?

Good documentary on the leadup to how they all tie together, Bitter Lake [youtube].

Sort of:

Before the rise of the Islamic State, no group in the past few centuries had attempted more-radical fidelity to the Prophetic model than the Wahhabis of 18th‑century Arabia. They conquered most of what is now Saudi Arabia, and their strict practices survive in a diluted version of Sharia there. Haykel sees an important distinction between the groups, though: “The Wahhabis were not wanton in their violence.” They were surrounded by Muslims, and they conquered lands that were already Islamic; this stayed their hand. “ISIS, by contrast, is really reliving the early period.” Early Muslims were surrounded by non-Muslims, and the Islamic State, because of its takfiri tendencies, considers itself to be in the same situation.

 

[RustyNails]

Keep reading. Saying an occupation is "one way" to do something, then recommending against it, is definitely not a recommendation as the "only solution".

I did read the whole thing. He floated the idea of occupation out there.

 

[Lemaitre]

Does the article speak of Saudi Arabia Wahabbism since that was the origin of Al Qaeda, Taliban, and ISIS?

Good documentary on the leadup to how they all tie together, Bitter Lake [youtube].

This article is problematic because it does not cover much of the necessary history in order to fully understand the full complexity of what ISIS is, both in why it came to be and what it is today.

 

[RustyNails]

The way the Islamic tradition has worked for centuries is that there have always been learned scholars who have studied for years (under other scholars) in order to issue necessary jurisprudence or interpretations of the Quran. The problem that Islam is facing today is a relatively modern development.

With the advent of Wahhabism (Wahhabi himself was not a scholar) people took this as an opportunity to disregard the years of schooling that is necessary for issuing opinions on the Quran. For instance, many of these extremest groups today declare many Muslims takfir, and thus excommunicate them because they are not following ideals of Islam that these unlearned ignoramuses espouse.

And yet, for most of Islamic history the practice of excommunication was never instituted, even at the most heated times of disagreement and in times of war between feuding Muslim groups. Yet, the practice of takfir is what rationalizes the deaths of many Muslims today for these many extremist groups, ISIS included.

This is a good post.

Although Abdul Wahhab was not a scholar, he was instrumental in infusing the Al Saud tribe with the religious gravitas it needed.

 

[orochi91]

Interesting article.

Daesh are bound to run out of resources eventually; they can't sustain their "state" long term.

The thought of them being a significant player in the ME decades onward is a depressing thought.

 

[Valhelm]

It's scary thinking about how Islam is going so backwards.

I actually think that it isn't. The thing about terrorism is that it's a loser's fight. It's always a rebellion against a more powerful force. Even rebellions like the American Revolution and US Civil War were reactionary movements against change. Fearing an imposition on their rights, certain landowners rebelled.

The Middle East is Westernizing and Secularizing relatively fast. While many people might not think so, the difference between New York and Kabul, Damascus, or Kuwait City is a lot smaller than it was a century ago. Even Iran is a very Western nation, in clothing, architecture, and government organization. Nearly all terrorist sect in the Middle East has been formed to combat growing foreign (and usually American) influence. The main reason that Al-Qaeda hates the United States is because American soldiers were briefly stationed in Mecca and Medina.

ISIS is the most volatile and most flamboyant example of these terrorist groups, and directly exists as a way to combat the secularization of the Islamic world. Wahhabism is only popular these days because it's a rejection of Westernization, and an alternative choice to young Muslims who may feel pressured into acting like Americans. This makes its ideology popular with reactionary Muslims around the world. I have no doubt that the majority of ISIS members don't really want to live like seventh-century Bedouins, but ISIS is a group with power and a fighting chance that stands for many of the values these people support. For very conservative Muslims, ISIS is a chance to reverse what they see as a growing, horrific influence.

If Islam as a whole was actually going backward, a group like ISIS could never exist.

 

[orochi91]

The way the Islamic tradition has worked for centuries is that there have always been learned scholars who have studied for years (under other scholars) in order to issue necessary jurisprudence or interpretations of the Quran. The problem that Islam is facing today is a relatively modern development.

With the advent of Wahhabism (Wahhabi himself was not a scholar) people took this as an opportunity to disregard the years of schooling that is necessary for issuing opinions on the Quran. For instance, many of these extremest groups today declare many Muslims takfir, and thus excommunicate them because they are not following ideals of Islam that these unlearned ignoramuses espouse.

And yet, for most of Islamic history the practice of excommunication was never instituted, even at the most heated times of disagreement and in times of war between feuding Muslim groups. Yet, the practice of takfir is what rationalizes the deaths of many Muslims today for these many extremist groups, ISIS included.

This is a great post.

Wish someone would go back in time and stop Wahhabi from influencing the Saudis.

 

[m_shortpants]

No true Scotsman, unless of course it's someone saying the Scotsman is what we want him to be.

Oh and appeal to authority.

 

[Valhelm]

Does the article speak of Saudi Arabia Wahabbism since that was the origin of Al Qaeda, Taliban, and ISIS?

Good documentary on the leadup to how they all tie together, Bitter Lake [youtube].

Thanks for sharing. Far too many people are ignorant about what causes 21st-century terrorism.

 

[oneils]

Instead of arguing about how Islamic IS are or aren't, we should simply ask ourselves, "Are we convinced they believe what they say?" I think, at this point, it would be unreasonable to say, "no."

If we can agree on that, we can start talking about how to deal with them.

Yeah, my feelings as well. What does it matter if their interpretation of Islam is legitimate or not? Their interpretation is intolerable. Now we should probably figure out a way to dissolve it.

 

[Jeels]

That was a really piss poor article. Adding fuel to the fire, congrats.

 

[Lamel]

What does ISIS really want? This princeton professor has all the answers!

Muslims HATE him.

 

[ramuh]

I actually think that it isn't. The thing about terrorism is that it's a loser's fight. It's always a rebellion against a more powerful force. Even rebellions like the American Revolution and US Civil War were reactionary movements against change. Fearing an imposition on their rights, certain landowners rebelled.

The Middle East is Westernizing and Secularizing relatively fast. While many people might not think so, the difference between New York and Kabul, Damascus, or Kuwait City is a lot smaller than it was a century ago. Even Iran is a very Western nation, in clothing, architecture, and government organization. Nearly all terrorist sect in the Middle East has been formed to combat growing foreign (and usually American) influence. The main reason that Al-Qaeda hates the United States is because American soldiers were briefly stationed in Mecca and Medina.

ISIS is the most volatile and most flamboyant example of these terrorist groups, and directly exists as a way to combat the secularization of the Islamic world. Wahhabism is only popular these days because it's a rejection of Westernization, and an alternative choice to young Muslims who may feel pressured into acting like Americans. This makes its ideology popular with reactionary Muslims around the world. I have no doubt that the majority of ISIS members don't really want to live like seventh-century Bedouins, but ISIS is a group with power and a fighting chance that stands for many of the values these people support. For very conservative Muslims, ISIS is a chance to reverse what they see as a growing, horrific influence.

If Islam as a whole was actually going backward, a group like ISIS could never exist.

Thanks for the reply. We disagree on what is going backwards or not, but I respect your opinion and insight. To me, personally, the perception of Islam has gotten more negative. You turn on the news, hear about some terrorist event and 9/10 times (don't quote me) it's someone killing/murdering/enslaving (usually their own) professing something about Islam. The fact that the world is more interconnected and news is brought to us in minutes could play a role. Even if you are right about the push of secularism in the Islam world is right and this tsunami of Islam terrorist attacks are the result of the pushback from so called "Western" values, you have to admit there is seriously something wrong in Islam's house. Whether it's the ideology or the people teaching the ideology.

 

[Archer]

It continues to blow my mind that we've had actual ISIS defenders on this forum. Not many, but still...

Never forget that most ppl in this world are stupid, at best. Sadly, our world is not anywhere remotely close to STTNG.

 

[orochi91]

It continues to blow my mind that we've had actual ISIS defenders on this forum. Not many, but still...

Eh?

Whose defending ISIS?

 

[speculawyer]

Yeah, my feelings as well. What does it matter if their interpretation of Islam is legitimate or not? Their interpretation is intolerable. Now we should probably figure out a way to dissolve it.

It matters to know the source of the ideology so you can tailor your response to it. This is not something that can be defeated with bombs and bullets alone. It will require a long term change of society and education.

And it matters on how much you must remain vigilant. Apparently the answer is forever. Let's imagine every violent jihadist had a heart attack and died tomorrow. would we be in clear forever going forward? Nope. All it takes is one young kid reading the Koran and going with a literal view. .. and getting a few followers. That happens over and over and over again. Hence Alqueada, IS, Boko Haram, AlShabab, Al Nusra front, etc.


If you just say...oh, they are NOT REALLY Muslims then you will never understand the problem and won't be able to address it well.

 

[FZZ]

Do people consider members of the west boro Baptist Church as valid members of the Christian faith and their interpretation of it is just one form of Christianity?

Or do you consider them crazy members who have distorted the view of the religion they follow and misrepresent the vast majority of others who follow it?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Eh?

Whose defending ISIS?

he got banned

Honestly all the Abrahamic religions are problematic and include a variety of nods to barbaric views. The sooner we can admit this the better. There are good members of all those religions, in fact you could argue most Muslims/Christians/Jews/etc are peaceful. But that doesn't change the fact that their religious texts feature all sorts of ugly shit.

So do many history books, works of fiction, enlightenment philosophical texts, political ideologies, political speeches, campaign ads, jokes, forum posts, neogaf threads, tumblr posts, tweets, facebook posts etc, etc.

 

[DragonSworne]

So does anyone have a suggestion why Muslims tend to disassociate ISIS from Islam and people of other religions don't do the same for their more extremist followers?


I find the whole daesh business to be counterproductive.

 

[Brakke]

So does anyone have a suggestion why Muslims tend to disassociate ISIS from Islam and people of other religions don't do the same for their more extremist followers?

I find the whole daesh business to be counterproductive.

What? Lots of groups dissociate from lunatics.

 

[speculawyer]

So do many history books, works of fiction, enlightenment philosophical texts, political ideologies, political speeches, campaign ads, jokes, forum posts, neogaf threads, tumblr posts, tweets, facebook posts etc, etc.

Yeah and we then mock them, criticize them, and get people to see the harm they do to others. But it is really hard to do that with something many claim to be the perfect word of god, period. It's a extremely difficult issue.

 

[Brakke]

It matters to know the source of the ideology so you can tailor your response to it. This is not something that can be defeated with bombs and bullets alone. It will require a long term change of society and education.

And it matters on how much you must remain vigilant. Apparently the answer is forever. Let's imagine every violent jihadist had a heart attack and died tomorrow. would we be in clear forever going forward? Nope. All it takes is one young kid reading the Koran and going with a literal view. .. and getting a few followers. That happens over and over and over again. Hence Alqueada, IS, Boko Haram, AlShabab, Al Nusra front, etc.


If you just say...oh, they are NOT REALLY Muslims then you will never understand the problem and won't be able to address it well.

This is gross. You're standing for perpetual mistrust of all Muslims forever? Lame.

 

[DragonSworne]

What? Lots of groups dissociate from lunatics.

The question was asking about dissociating a group from a religion.

 

[speculawyer]

So does anyone have a suggestion why Muslims tend to disassociate ISIS from Islam and people of other religions don't do the same for their more extremist followers?

Uh. .. I'd say most Christians disassociate with the KKK. (Though not all.)

Edit: oops. Misinterpreted that. Well many will now say KKK were not real Christians but that's a tough sell. And they'll deny any association between Nazis and Christianity.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yeah and we then mock them, criticize them, and get people to see the harm they do to others. But it is really hard to do that with something many claim to be the perfect word of god, period. It's a extremely difficult issue.

We also tend to realize that its not really these sources that are the cause of the problems.

 

[oneils]

It matters to know the source of the ideology so you can tailor your response to it. This is not something that can be defeated with bombs and bullets alone. It will require a long term change of society and education.

And it matters on how much you must remain vigilant. Apparently the answer is forever. Let's imagine every violent jihadist had a heart attack and died tomorrow. would we be in clear forever going forward? Nope. All it takes is one young kid reading the Koran and going with a literal view. .. and getting a few followers. That happens over and over and over again. Hence Alqueada, IS, Boko Haram, AlShabab, Al Nusra front, etc.


If you just say...oh, they are NOT REALLY Muslims then you will never understand the problem and won't be able to address it well.

Yeah , that's my point "the real Muslim" debate is a distraction.

I'm not saying ignore their motivations or don't bother to understand them or their interpretation of Islam. I m talking about the constant debate about what "a real Muslim" is or what the "real Islam is." We will never answer it.

 

[FZZ]

The question was asking about dissociating a group from a religion.

Do people consider members of the west boro Baptist Church as valid members of the Christian faith and their interpretation of it is just one form of Christianity?

Or do you consider them crazy members who have distorted the view of the religion they follow and misrepresent the vast majority of others who follow it?

Did you miss my post?