Forum Thread

What ISIS really wants...

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 8 Posts
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Graeme Wood, The Atlantic, March 2015: What ISIS Really Wants.

    "The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it."

    I recall discussing the theme of this March 2015 Atlantic article in this website, but I couldn't locate that discussion off hand. So I'll start a new thread for those who want to take the time and read the rather long article and then comment. For me it's another example of religion run a muck, as the driving force for ISIS can be found in the scriptures of the Qur'an.

    As Wood explains: "[T]he religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam. Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal."

    The point I have made in prior posts is that when religious groups claim that their ancient written scriptures (e.g. Qur'an, Bible, Torah) are the "word of God" then they have a hard time explaining the "modernity" of their religions when government laws (man's laws) outlaw such things as stoning of women or beheading. Many of the Qur'anic verses that modern Muslims reject for functioning in today's society of rules and laws can also be found in the Bible with some digging.

    So ISIS claims validity as a caliphate by referencing (interpreting is the word that modernists use) their scriptures that are the word of God. And who can argue with that "God calling" unless you are an atheist?

    Anyway, these people think differently, as all religiously indoctrinated extremists do. It's just a question of degree. I could go on and on, but I'll let others chime in on the discussion. It would be helpful if you read the article first.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Graeme Wood, The Atlantic, March 2015: What ISIS Really Wants.

    "The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it."

    I recall discussing the theme of this March 2015 Atlantic article in this website, but I couldn't locate that discussion off hand. So I'll start a new thread for those who want to take the time and read the rather long article and then comment. For me it's another example of religion run a muck, as the driving force for ISIS can be found in the scriptures of the Qur'an.

    As Wood explains: "[T]he religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam. Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal."

    The point I have made in prior posts is that when religious groups claim that their ancient written scriptures (e.g. Qur'an, Bible, Torah) are the "word of God" then they have a hard time explaining the "modernity" of their religions when government laws (man's laws) outlaw such things as stoning of women or beheading. Many of the Qur'anic verses that modern Muslims reject for functioning in today's society of rules and laws can also be found in the Bible with some digging.

    So ISIS claims validity as a caliphate by referencing (interpreting is the word that modernists use) their scriptures that are the word of God. And who can argue with that "God calling" unless you are an atheist?

    Anyway, these people think differently, as all religiously indoctrinated extremists do. It's just a question of degree. I could go on and on, but I'll let others chime in on the discussion. It would be helpful if you read the article first.

    A very interesting article; but yeah "articles" do not solve this situation. Our leaders are probably way too busy to read such anyway because they only listen to our generals and other "own program" advisors. Our Evangelicals are not much different but are more sneaky hypocrite types and work a bit more hidden, like Carson.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    To be fair I should reference Haroon Moghul's counterpoint to Graeme Wood's article.

    Haroon Moghul, Salon: The Atlantic’s big Islam lie: What Muslims really believe about ISIS

    "That a movement that has earned the world’s nearly universal opprobrium for its grotesque violence and wickedness is nevertheless honest in describing why it does what it does. I beg to differ. The only Muslims who think ISIS represents Islam, or even Muslims, are ISIS themselves.

    "That’s the first thing everyone needs to know about “the Islamic State.” And the second? If you want to know why ISIS exists, don’t bother searching Islamic texts, or examining Islamic traditions. The real reason ISIS happens is because of what keeps happening to Muslims."

    "But for every deluded soul ISIS ensnares, or who seeks them out, countless more condemn them, oppose them, reject them or fight them. It’s beyond a stretch to argue that ISIS represents Islam, is grounded in Islam, or justified by Islam. That’s not to say they don’t claim religious mandates, or exploit religion to enable their savagery."

    Muslims like Moghul can reject Wood's depicture of how ISIS is an extremist element of Islam, but as I said before...it's in their texts..."God's word". I have listened to modernist Muslims explain their "modernist" interpretations of the Qur'an, and I commend them as I do the Christians who also adhere to "modernist" interpretations of the Bible. However, both sound a little hypocritical when they reject certain passages of their scriptures yet adhere to others that validate their bigotry or prejudices towards the "other". Neither Christians nor Muslims can have it both ways.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Graeme Wood, The Atlantic, March 2015: What ISIS Really Wants.

    "The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it."

    I recall discussing the theme of this March 2015 Atlantic article in this website, but I couldn't locate that discussion off hand. So I'll start a new thread for those who want to take the time and read the rather long article and then comment. For me it's another example of religion run a muck, as the driving force for ISIS can be found in the scriptures of the Qur'an.

    As Wood explains: "[T]he religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam. Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal."

    The point I have made in prior posts is that when religious groups claim that their ancient written scriptures (e.g. Qur'an, Bible, Torah) are the "word of God" then they have a hard time explaining the "modernity" of their religions when government laws (man's laws) outlaw such things as stoning of women or beheading. Many of the Qur'anic verses that modern Muslims reject for functioning in today's society of rules and laws can also be found in the Bible with some digging.

    So ISIS claims validity as a caliphate by referencing (interpreting is the word that modernists use) their scriptures that are the word of God. And who can argue with that "God calling" unless you are an atheist?

    Anyway, these people think differently, as all religiously indoctrinated extremists do. It's just a question of degree. I could go on and on, but I'll let others chime in on the discussion. It would be helpful if you read the article first.

    Accordingly it appears that Carson and Dees and to some extent Hayden are the ideological response to ISIS. The person to construct the response to the Islamic State is G. Gordon Liddy.
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    God is repulsed. The most disgusting phrase in various forms is "inshallah", God wills it. It is the same as gott mitt uns. And it is bullshit, pure unadulterated unalloyed bullshit. And I for one am tired of it. The current/recurrent Christian nation crap in the u.s. is a somewhat less virulent strain but can mutate to be just as deadly which we saw in the Spanish-Cuban-American war when senator beveridge iirc said they were going to christianize the Philippines which had been Roman Catholic for centuries. Disgusting.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    ISIS talks about meeting the Roman Army outside Dbaq. Carson and Dees sound very much like launching a Christian Crusade.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: God is repulsed. The most disgusting phrase in various forms is "inshallah", God wills it. It is the same as gott mitt uns. And it is bullshit, pure unadulterated unalloyed bullshit. And I for one am tired of it. The current/recurrent Christian nation crap in the u.s. is a somewhat less virulent strain but can mutate to be just as deadly which we saw in the Spanish-Cuban-American war when senator beveridge iirc said they were going to christianize the Philippines which had been Roman Catholic for centuries. Disgusting.
    Yes Lonely; here they say as well" Its God's will" as an excuse for everything mankind screws up on this globe. As I said religion is the curse of humanity; how many people since centuries have been killed or prosecuted for it?. While no one ever has seen or met a human fantasized "god" thing; it still has to be proven such thing exist in what form or location and how it controls a billion of stars etc. Humans are less than a bacteria in the universe, But this bacteria knows it all. Just keep killing each other for the "unknown" is pure laughable. Bibles and Korans are only "human" written books which have no impact on the universe; only on uneducated indoctrinated naïve humans.
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    KSchmidt Wrote:

    To be fair I should reference Haroon Moghul's counterpoint to Graeme Wood's article.

    Haroon Moghul, Salon: The Atlantic’s big Islam lie: What Muslims really believe about ISIS

    "That a movement that has earned the world’s nearly universal opprobrium for its grotesque violence and wickedness is nevertheless honest in describing why it does what it does. I beg to differ. The only Muslims who think ISIS represents Islam, or even Muslims, are ISIS themselves.

    "That’s the first thing everyone needs to know about “the Islamic State.” And the second? If you want to know why ISIS exists, don’t bother searching Islamic texts, or examining Islamic traditions. The real reason ISIS happens is because of what keeps happening to Muslims."

    "But for every deluded soul ISIS ensnares, or who seeks them out, countless more condemn them, oppose them, reject them or fight them. It’s beyond a stretch to argue that ISIS represents Islam, is grounded in Islam, or justified by Islam. That’s not to say they don’t claim religious mandates, or exploit religion to enable their savagery."

    Muslims like Moghul can reject Wood's depicture of how ISIS is an extremist element of Islam, but as I said before...it's in their texts..."God's word". I have listened to modernist Muslims explain their "modernist" interpretations of the Qur'an, and I commend them as I do the Christians who also adhere to "modernist" interpretations of the Bible. However, both sound a little hypocritical when they reject certain passages of their scriptures yet adhere to others that validate their bigotry or prejudices towards the "other". Neither Christians nor Muslims can have it both ways.

    rejection of various sections of "god's word" is commonplace. in point of opinion it is necessary. many christians reject various sections of the law because to accept them would make them more jewish and less "paulican." this is the inherent danger of inerrancy. and when we add in additions, subtractions, alterations, copying errors and so forth even more possibility for danger exists.

    it matters not. any so-called scripture of the three abrahamic faiths is no more the word of god than what shows up in any fiction writer.