Support NeoGAF

[m_shortpants]

Anyone have Crab's post from the other thread? Will look for it once I get to a PC.

 

[speculawyer]

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

So we shouldn't criticize anything anyone says? Great plan of sticking your head in the sand.

Why are you wasting your time criticizing me?

 

[DragonSworne]

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

When the extremist interpretation of Jihad becomes equally ridiculously as trying to find the holy grail, then there'll be peace.

But that happening anytime soon is just as likely as the US suddenly announcing it will be sending troops next yeae to find the garden of eden.

 

[ramuh]

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

If anything I think it's the opposite. Christians tend to congregate in Countries that have more venues for Free Speech and ideals. Meaning it's easier to dissociate from radicals. Muslims tend to live in areas where censorship and free speech and ideals are usually limited.

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.

Yes but how often for a political speech or campaign ad etc lead to someone killing innocents in the name of whatever their beef is? Did anyone get murdered in the streets when that Piss Christ picture exhibit opened?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Did you see violence and death? No. If that was figure of Mohammad in the glass of piss, you would probably see an act of Religiously Inspired Terrorism that would result in innocents dying.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So we shouldn't criticize anything anyone says? Great plan of sticking your head in the sand.

Why are you wasting your time criticizing me?

I'm saying the quran isn't to blame. Not that you can't criticize ISIS. I was responding to PD when he said the religious texts have a bunch of barbaric stuff in them.

Well so does a lot of stuff. They don't tend to provoke these responses, and I don't think the quran is uniquely causing people to do things.

 

[speculawyer]

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.

Got it. Yeah I agree. It is a pointless question anyway since only a god coming down and giving an answer would resolve it. I kinda doubt that will happen. (of course I think that no answer from God provides a big clue.)

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

Solid article and a solid polemic against simps who think the best thing to do about genocide is to make quips about the crusades and "No True Scotsman".

 

[speculawyer]

I'm saying the quran isn't to blame. Not that you can't criticize ISIS. I was responding to PD when he said the religious texts have a bunch of barbaric stuff in them.

Well so does a lot of stuff. They don't tend to provoke these responses, and I don't think the quran is uniquely causing people to do things.

The big difference is that only one faith claims their holy book is the perfect word of god. You don't seem to appreciate how that affects the situation.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

If anything I think it's the opposite. Christians tend to congregate in Countries that have more venues for Free Speech and ideals. Meaning it's easier to dissociate from radicals. Muslims tend to live in areas where censorship and free speech and ideals are usually limited.

Take a look at Uganda. Christianity isn't unique in this sense. And what about the millions of muslims in the West?

Yes but how often for a political speech or campaign ad etc lead to someone killing innocents in the name of whatever their beef is? Did anyone get murdered in the streets when that Piss Christ picture exhibit opened?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Did you see violence and death? No. If that was figure of Mohammad in the glass of piss, you would probably see an act of Religiously Inspired Terrorism that would result in innocents dying.

Lots of times?

Like when they call for war, demonize religious/ethnic minorities, justify support for oppressive regimes?

Like when christian have lynched gay people? Black people? Abortion providers?

The fact that there a bunch of people killing in the supposed name of muhammed doesn't lead to the conclusion that islam is uniquely violent.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

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.

For all intents and purposes it doesn't matter what is and isn't a "real Muslim". There's a massive genocidal group that is increasing its territory and for all intents and purposes that group's Islam is the Real Islam in the area that it controls.

 

[ramuh]

The fact that there a bunch of people killing in the supposed name of muhammed doesn't lead to the conclusion that islam is uniquely violent.

Listen. I'm not saying Islam is a Terrible Religion. I'm trying to get to the point that there is something wrong with either the teaching or ideology. Can you not agree that there is enough people "killing in the supposed name of muhammed" to raise suspicion or cast doubts on how Islam is being taught? We can look at effects of Youth Population/Unemployment and my neverending spill about Youth Bulges and the corresponding effect on violence in history, But that still doesn't cover the sheer amount of brutality done in this modern World in the name of one Religion.

 

[Brakke]

Solid article and a solid polemic against simps who think the best thing to do about genocide is to make quips about the crusades and "No True Scotsman".

Who are these "simps" then? Obama gives a speech mentioning crusades and also asks Congress for authorization of war powers.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

Saved for every future ISIS thread....

Yes, of course they are Islamic and Islamic groups constantly saying they're not following Islam really grinds my gears, but that doesn't mean they represent all Islam.
It's like saying the Westboro Baptist Church represent all Christians, they're just a very extreme example of it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The big difference is that only one faith claims their holy book is the perfect word of god. You don't seem to appreciate how that affects the situation.

It seems like your projecting a standard on the religious people they themselves don't even hold themselves to.

I mean marx portrayed his communist doctrine of the class struggle as the one truth about human history. You place reason as the one truth. Republicans believe in tax cuts as the one truth.

Its not as if other muslims ignore portions of their holy book, how come they and christians can?

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

My god, they want the entire Atlantic ocean?

I was reading and was like "get to the ocean already" I thought it had something to do with Osama's body.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

Islamic state will never enter turkey, if they do they will meet their end.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Listen. I'm not saying Islam is a Terrible Religion. I'm trying to get to the point that there is something wrong with either the teaching or ideology. Can you not agree that there is enough people "killing in the supposed name of muhammed" to raise suspicion or cast doubts on how Islam is being taught? We can look at effects of Youth Population/Unemployment and my neverending spill about Youth Bulges and the corresponding effect on violence in history, But that still doesn't cover the sheer amount of brutality done in this modern World in the name of one Religion.

That far removed from quotes from the quran used to paint islam as radically distinct from other religions or ideology.

It will bring up questions of how government corruption, western interference, lack of religious liberty, stability, lack of economic opportunity, 19th century wars, etc etc have lead to this point rather than just looking and saying "they're all islamic" and blaming that. Its actually important to point out Wahhabism and radical islam are a reaction to the west they can't exist without its counterpoint and "decadence". The were birthed in the late 19th and early 20th century in response to the failure of the Ottoman empire to hold its territory, Napoleons invasion shocked the Muslim world. They wasn't this type of regression in say the 16,17th and 18th century.

A lot of violence (most?) of this violence is done by men, Why don't we blame the y chromosome?

 

[Joeytj]

Lol, I thought they wanted the Atlantic ocean too, only reason I clicked.

The real subject of this thread isn't really that interesting to me. I don't have a hard time believing religion can be the source of such "evil" like ISIS, but i don't see islam being more or less susceptible to extremes than any other religion or ideology. So, I don't like articles or "experts" who believe this is an "islam" problem.

If it's something else than typical social, political or natural causes, than the conflict with ISIS is just another problem with religion mixed with political power.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Anyone have Crab's post from the other thread? Will look for it once I get to a PC.

The post where he said "nationalism isn't so bad because we got socialized medicine after Hitler killed everyone" or another?

Some people on this forum take such a "sociological impacts do not exist" approach when it comes to Islam. It's obvious that Islam isn't the only or main factor in the terrorism problem in the Middle East, but the simultaneous arguments (such as were given by Crab) that "Islam is crucially important to the lives of billions," and "Islam has no impact on this," seem logically contradictory. I don't consider your interpretation of your faith to be at all violent or negative at all, but I do think it's worth looking into (through advanced statistical studies, not the "statistics" from Maher) whether or not Islam should be owed some contribution to the recent violence.

It's unfair to consider Islam inherently more violent than Judaism or Christianity at their core and racists in Europe and America are ridiculous in how they treat and talk about moderate Muslims, but I think there's been enough killings for Islam to look into whether or not there's a sociological impact. And if there's determined to be a negative impact from Islam with regards to violence, then Islamic scholars and priests would be better served toning down some interpretations of Islam that could contribute to violence (But as of now, I don't know if there are statistical studies on the issue so I don't think they need to condemn every attack like Fox and other shitholes say they should).

 

[ramuh]

This is an Opinion Piece on why ISIS is doing what it is doing. I think it's a great read.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/opinion/bergen-isis-enemies/index.html

 

[Maninthemirror]

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.

if you REALLY want Daesh to be islamic where by it is following Islam rightfully as the text says....then its your choice, Can't force you to accept the truth.

and you know if you say its what Daesh thinks what the text says so in their way its islamic, well you are right...I guess you are then giving Daesh the benefit of the doubt which is curious as they don't deserve any benefit of anything.


but...if you REALLY want them to be seen as Islamic...that is your choice...


what is disturbing that we see the view that everything that ISIS sees as a view is wrong.....except when its reading their text which when most Muslims say is incorrect reading and/or understanding....then suddenly its "no no you dont know if ISIS is wrong, they very well may be right".

realistically I see this as if people who are really critical of Islam don't push the view of ISIS as legitimate religiously, then their views against Islam falls apart as then they have to deal with moderate Muslims as legitimate which douses their flame of hate against the faith. Realistically you cannot blame them, before 9/11, they had no excuse except orientalist revisionist history and after 9/11 people are selling books off of this flame of hate against faith with ISIS as their bankrollers by proxy

 

[HK-47]

Yes, of course they are Islamic and Islamic groups constantly saying they're not following Islam really grinds my gears, but that doesn't mean they represent all Islam.
It's like saying the Westboro Baptist Church represent all Christians, they're just a very extreme example of it.

He probably wants to use it agains the bevy of no true scotsman arguments that muddle the debate every time we discuss this.

 

[Kurdel]

Good read, didn't know about their doomsday fascination before this.

 

[Brakke]

This "no true Scotsman" refrain is tired. Lots of groups define in- and out-groups legitmately. Some people *aren't* Scots. It's only fallacy if you're excluding someone from a classification for purposes of convenience or without any kind of generalizable rubric. Appeals to authority are legitimate on this issue.

Grouping and labeling are serious concerns with serious stakes, ask anyone with an Al in their name how often they get "randomly screened" at airports. Or Speculawyer over here talking all Muslims deserve suspicion and scrutiny.

People get to dissociate from lunatics. It's important to delineate daesh's Islam from the Islam of however many gazillion Muslims in the world denounce their actions.

 

[soul creator]

while I definitely agree with the idea that we shouldn't pretend like Islam is omg the greatest threat to all existence or whatever, and that sometimes discussions of terrorism related to Islam and other religions can be overblown, it does seem odd when people pretend like what people believe in doesn't matter, simply because "hey, people do bad stuff for all sorts of reasons!"

Beliefs, motivations, and yes, specific ideas matter. "Sincerely held beliefs" are a thing, and they are a factor (sure, not always "the" factor, but they can be a major one) in how some people act. If we allow for the fact that "god wants me to do X" is a possible motivation for people to do positive things, then the converse is easily true: "god wants me to do X" is a possible motivation for doing terrible things. And until there's some methodology to determine what God really wants us to do, and knowing how to separate that from what God doesn't want us to do

Spoiler

and as everyone in a religious discussion has noticed, "objective evidence" tends to come secondary to things like "personal experiences" and "faith" unfortunately

, we'll continue to have religiously motivated actions that will vary all across the spectrum, from good to bad. And as lots of progressive religious believers are fond of mentioning, we should take people at their word when they explain their religious motivated actions. Sometimes people genuinely believe in what they're doing, even if what they are doing is incredibly harmful and destructive. And it's not always because of "mental illness" or "psychopathy". Humans are funny like that.

I think that's the main thrust of the article.

 

[Maninthemirror]

This "no true Scotsman" refrain is tired. Lots of groups define in- and out-groups legitmately. Some people *aren't* Scots. It's only fallacy if you're excluding someone from a classification for purposes of convenience or without any kind of generalizable rubric. Appeals to authority are legitimate on this issue.

Grouping and labeling are serious concerns with serious stakes, ask anyone with an Al in their name how often they get "randomly screened" at airports. Or Speculawyer over here talking all Muslims deserve suspicion and scrutiny.

People get to dissociate from lunatics. It's important to delineate daesh's Islam from the Islam of however many gazillion Muslims in the world denounce their actions.

my cousin was screened yesterday after traveling with his wife and child and their 15 month old son for 5 hours in Dulles because of 'random screening' but the questions were all about intent of visit and religious affiliations etc. This is usually driven by the fear mongering created by those who misunderstand faith or by those who want others to misunderstand the faith by having everyone seen as guilty before being deemed innocent in the eyes of civil society.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This "no true Scotsman" refrain is tired. Lots of groups define in- and out-groups legitmately. Some people *aren't* Scots. It's only fallacy if you're excluding someone from a classification for purposes of convenience or without any kind of generalizable rubric. Appeals to authority are legitimate on this issue.

Grouping and labeling are serious concerns with serious stakes, ask anyone with an Al in their name how often they get "randomly screened" at airports. Or Speculawyer over here talking all Muslims deserve suspicion and scrutiny.

People get to dissociate from lunatics. It's important to delineate daesh's Islam from the Islam of however many gazillion Muslims in the world denounce their actions.

Its not that I don't think their Islamic. They are.

I just have an issue where they seem to speak for Islam or represent it. The religion clearly doesn't produce radicals as most Muslims aren't. So if your trying to figure out what the problem is when most people read the quran and are peaceful and accepting of non-muslims it becomes clear the quran or basic tenants of Islam aren't to blame and yet that seems to be the constant refrain from many. If you look at other reasons its seems as if Religion can be used to legitimize actions but doesn't cause them.

 

[Messofanego]

my cousin was screened yesterday after traveling with his wife and child and their 15 month old son for 5 hours in Dulles because of 'random screening' but the questions were all about intent of visit and religious affiliations etc. This is usually driven by the fear mongering created by those who misunderstand faith or by those who want others to misunderstand the faith by having everyone seen as guilty before being deemed innocent in the eyes of civil society.

Do airport staff or security or police get trained much about muslims? I think mandatory teaching about them and islam would reduce the ridiculous amount of searches. Every time I've been to USA through New York, I've been stopped and interrogated in a separate room like some criminal. Doesn't help to have Muhammad as a first name. Some empathy and teaching would go a long way in avoiding those kneejerk reactions.

 

[HK-47]

Do airport staff or security or police get trained much about muslims? I think mandatory teaching about them and islam would reduce the ridiculous amount of searches. Every time I've been to USA through New York, I've been stopped and interrogated in a separate room like some criminal. Doesn't help to have Muhammad as a first name. Some empathy and teaching would go a long way in avoiding those kneejerk reactions.

I really dont believe this would change much. I think the discrimination is policy.

 

[Brakke]

Its not that I don't think their Islamic. They are.

I just have an issue where they seem to speak for Islam or represent it. The religion clearly doesn't produce radicals as most Muslims aren't. So if your trying to figure out what the problem is when most people read the quran and are peaceful and accepting of non-muslims it becomes clear the quran or basic tenants of Islam aren't to blame and yet that seems to be the constant refrain from many. If you look at other reasons its seems as if Religion can be used to legitimize actions but doesn't cause them.

Yeah. Daesh may be Islamic but they are not Islam. It's an important distinction that has real consequences for real people. It's perfectly legitimate for Muslims to censure Daesh and refuse association with them.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Interesting. I see some posting on if Christians today are similar and I would say probably in some areas but in the West they may have similar beliefs but nothing would ever come of them. Like you wouldn't see a Christian State of Indiana and Ohio sprout up and go Biblical on some heretics. But put Christianity in a volatile region and I think similar things would happen with an extremist Christian flavor.

That's because Christianity is principally about the New Testament and the New World Order called "love".

At worst, the Christian is commanded in the New Testament to kick people out of the fellowship if they're doing something that was deemed problematic. Killing was never a NT thing for Christians to be doing. Just believe, love and care for each other, convert people and maintain order within the church, encouraging people stay on the straight & narrow (and sometimes kicking people out until they do).

Stuff like the Salem Witch Trials, Inquisitions and Crusades were birthed out of the man-man religious aspects that grew away from New Testament teachings in order to satiate the greedy, the afraid and the corrupt in power.

 

[soul creator]

Its not that I don't think their Islamic. They are.

I just have an issue where they seem to speak for Islam or represent it. The religion clearly doesn't produce radicals as most Muslims aren't. So if your trying to figure out what the problem is when most people read the quran and are peaceful and accepting of non-muslims it becomes clear the quran or basic tenants of Islam aren't to blame and yet that seems to be the constant refrain from many. If you look at other reasons its seems as if Religion can be used to legitimize actions but doesn't cause them.

I think the discussion then comes down to whether this is that meaningful of a difference in practice. Guns don't kill people, and people kill people, and the majority of people who own guns aren't violent criminals, but guns sure do make the job a lot easier if you do happen to want to be violent. Guns are "just a tool", but some tools happen to fit some purposes better than others.

Religions don't cause all people to do terrible things (most religious people are obviously not out there murdering everyone), and in fact can influence people to do great things! But if you do want to convince a large amount of people to do terrible things...using gods and holy books is a pretty useful tool to accomplish that with, since "god wants you to do X" is a powerful psychological motivator for all sorts of people. And understanding that "need to do what the leader says" motivation (rather than ignoring it and saying "oh, they must clearly be motivated by something else") is pretty important, which I think is what the author gets at. And some types of ideologies are more heavily influenced by "doing what the leader says" than others

Spoiler

"doing what the leader says" is essentially built into the core of "single god that rules everything" monotheism

.

I mean, I guess you could convince people to do terrible things due to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's theoretically possible for a UN version of ISIS to form using that ("people can do bad things using any ideology! you can kill people with a pencil if you really wanted to!"), but I'd imagine it'd be a bit tougher to interpret things that way. And the whole "not coming from God" thing also probably makes it less likely to have a hold on people.

 

[Naked Snake]

I just finished reading the full article and came here to see if a thread about it has been made already. Excellent article.

 

[elfinke]

I just finished reading the full article and came to post here to see if a thread about it has been made already. Excellent article.

Gosh I enjoyed reading that article. It was chilling in places, and engaging throughout. I ended up with about a dozen new tabs opened from needing and wanting to Google a bit more about various terms, people and places.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[antipode]

Reallly interesting article.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

One of my takes on ISIS is how could they afford to produce how quality, well directed and instantly subtitled production values, if they decided to run a movie business they can rival Hollywood.

 

[NJDEN]

The Islamic State wants to do just what its name indicates; establish a theocratic kingdom across the Levant based on extreme Islamic fundamentalism.

They've appointed a Caliph which I believe is a kind of supreme ruler. In reality ISIS or Daesh (if you've adopted its new name) is loosing ground big time and these recent heinous acts are out of desperation.

 

[HarryKS]

Saved for every future ISIS thread....

Yup, don't know why they don't want to acknowledge that. The biggest indication of that being the plea to call them DAESH.

I do understand that it's some sort of phonetic reconstruction of how they are described in arabic but come on...

Honestly, it sounds like a marketing ploy to limit damages.

 

[Yagharek]

if you REALLY want Daesh to be islamic where by it is following Islam rightfully as the text says....then its your choice, Can't force you to accept the truth.

and you know if you say its what Daesh thinks what the text says so in their way its islamic, well you are right...I guess you are then giving Daesh the benefit of the doubt which is curious as they don't deserve any benefit of anything.


but...if you REALLY want them to be seen as Islamic...that is your choice...


what is disturbing that we see the view that everything that ISIS sees as a view is wrong.....except when its reading their text which when most Muslims say is incorrect reading and/or understanding....then suddenly its "no no you dont know if ISIS is wrong, they very well may be right".

realistically I see this as if people who are really critical of Islam don't push the view of ISIS as legitimate religiously, then their views against Islam falls apart as then they have to deal with moderate Muslims as legitimate which douses their flame of hate against the faith. Realistically you cannot blame them, before 9/11, they had no excuse except orientalist revisionist history and after 9/11 people are selling books off of this flame of hate against faith with ISIS as their bankrollers by proxy

You seem to have a lot of trouble grasping a very simple concept.

Daesh are Islamic. So are Al Qaeda and Boko Haram. But so are peaceful Sunnis, Shi'ites, Shias, and any other normal group.

Abortion clinic bombers and Roman Catholic pedophiles are Christians. So are peaceful Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans and other groups.

You can have good and bad people within each group. They are still part of that group because their worldview is informed by its philosophy, though obviously they have reached different conclusions about what is permitted.

If you keep denying they are members of Islam, you are using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Messofanego]

You seem to have a lot of trouble grasping a very simple concept.

Daesh are Islamic. So are Al Qaeda and Boko Haram. But so are peaceful Sunnis, Shi'ites, Shias, and any other normal group.

Abortion clinic bombers and Roman Catholic pedophiles are Christians. So are peaceful Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans and other groups.

You can have good and bad people within each group. They are still part of that group because their worldview is informed by its philosophy, though obviously they have reached different conclusions about what is permitted.

If you keep denying they are members of Islam, you are using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Agreed, they're misguided but they're not some randoms who created a new religion on the spot that you can dissociate.

 

[Azih]

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.

And the Professor, with his absolute bullshit comment about me having a "a cotton-candy view of [my] own religion" is completely moronic nonsense that needs to be called out and debunked as the irrational Orientalist garbage that it is.

I am Muslim. My faith is pretty damn different from what these ISIS savages believe and for this bastard to tell me that they're 'more right' and I on the other hand am not really a Muslim (but am a 'cotten-candy' Muslim instead) is fucking enraging. He doesn't get to decide that. He has no right to appoint himself arbiter of what Islam really is and just declare that it's ISIS-like.

 

[Kurdel]

lHe doesn't get to decide that. He has no right to appoint himself arbiter of what Islam really is and just declare that it's ISIS-like.

Just like you don't, that was his point.

They are muslims, you a muslim, you have the same God and holy book. How far they are willing to go ti emulate the lifestyle of the prophet in 2015 is disgusting, but it is still born out of muslim tradition.

 

[Goodstyle]

My god, they want the entire Atlantic ocean?

Beat me to it.

 

[Azih]

Just like you don't, that was his point.

No his point was that they're more 'real muslim' (i.e barbarians who want to Conquer the World) and I'm a 'cotton candy' one. Are you really denying that?

 

[Aurongel]

One of my takes on ISIS is how could they afford to produce how quality, well directed and instantly subtitled production values, if they decided to run a movie business they can rival Hollywood.

This is what scares me most about them. The production values, the slow motion and the multiple angles makes their content incredibly easy to sell to a younger generation of impressionable individuals.

It's a terrifyingly effective recruiting tool and propaganda delivery mechanism. Better than any other high-profile terrorist organization in recent years anyway.

 

[KingGondo]

And the Professor, with his absolute bullshit comment about me having a "a cotton-candy view of [my] own religion" is completely moronic nonsense that needs to be called out and debunked as the irrational Orientalist garbage that it is.

I am Muslim. My faith is pretty damn different from what these ISIS savages believe and for this bastard to tell me that they're 'more right' and I on the other hand am not really a Muslim (but am a 'cotten-candy' Muslim instead) is fucking enraging. He doesn't get to decide that. He has no right to appoint himself arbiter of what Islam really is and just declare that it's ISIS-like.

That's not how I read his statements at all. Here's the quote in question:

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.”

He isn't making a statement about what Islam "really is," he's saying that there is historical precedent for what ISIS is doing and that it didn't just come out of nowhere.

Call them assholes, call them savages, say they've misinterpreted the Koran and that their ideology has no place in 2015... but to say they "aren't Muslim" is unproductive and silly. These guys are using an extremist form of a particular religion to justify their actions, and the article is an attempt to understand what they want and what they might do next in light of that.

No his point was that they're more 'real muslim' and I'm a 'cotton candy' one. Are you really denying that?

Please re-read the quote. That's not at all what he said.

He's saying that many Muslims white-wash the atrocities and nasty stuff in their holy book in order to distance themselves from fundamentalists like ISIS.

This isn't exclusive to Islam, by the way. There's all kinds of reprehensible nonsense in many religious texts that gets ignored or discarded as an anachronism so adherents can fit modern social standards.

 

[Cromat]

I read this yesterday, good article.

I think it touches on a very important issue: we should take people's ideologies seriously.
A lot of people seem to have this deep assumption that at the core, everyone accepts the Western liberal conception of the good. It is only due to the effects of poverty and failed political societies that people are 'led astray' to ideologies such as ISIS. But this involves a great deal of condescension and ignorance; people can and do have proper ideologies that they are willing to die for. And the Western liberal conception of the good is an ideology itself, it is not some 'default' that all non-impoverished people would naturally embrace.

It is true that the dysfunctional political reality in the Middle East, poverty, economic disparity and colonialism all contributed to the dominance of the ideology of political Islam. But we should not confuse the cause with the effect. People do subscribe to these ideologies, and they do so vehemently and honestly. They're not just poor, or angry or frustrated. They believe what they say they believe. Not only that, their ideology has robust historical and theological roots. The caliphate was (at least formally) the reality of the Middle East for 1200 years. ISIS are not making these things up.

 

[Maninthemirror]

You seem to have a lot of trouble grasping a very simple concept.

Daesh are Islamic. So are Al Qaeda and Boko Haram. But so are peaceful Sunnis, Shi'ites, Shias, and any other normal group.

Abortion clinic bombers and Roman Catholic pedophiles are Christians. So are peaceful Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans and other groups.

You can have good and bad people within each group. They are still part of that group because their worldview is informed by its philosophy, though obviously they have reached different conclusions about what is permitted.

If you keep denying they are members of Islam, you are using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

No one is saying they are non-muslims, most muslims are saying they are muslims by name only, not by action.

small example: its like saying Tea Party call themselves patriots, but are they really patriots or are they a bunch of crazies who think they are patriots but really are not and are trying to hurt us policy by putting crazies into congress . I mean Tea party and non-Tea Party both are americans but who are true patriots realistically.

 

[Kurdel]

No his point was that they're more 'real muslim' (i.e barbarians who want to Conquer the World) and I'm a 'cotton candy' one. Are you really denying that?

They seem to want to emulate Mohammad as much as possible, and follow his word and actions (crucifixion and slavery) more than you do.

But he says there aren't any "real muslims", like when he says no one can declare it "the religion of peace", because it is too vast and varied.

 

[Stereogatari]

He isn't making a statement about what Islam "really is," he's saying that there is historical precedent for what ISIS is doing and that it didn't just come out of nowhere.

There is absolutely no historical precedent for what ISIS is doing.

I've read the history of the Caliphates (Ottomans in particular) and none of them were barbarously formed in the way ISIS has formed their "caliphate".