The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[Razgovory]

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Amazing article.

I was less then impressed.  Particularly when he argues that other Muslims aren't actual real Muslims.

Huh?  Where did he argue that? What the hell does 'actual real Muslims' even mean?

It's a bit like arguing that Primitive Baptists are the only real Christians.

It is probably a bit like many things.  But what is and is not Islam is not really any of my business.  These guys say they are Islamic, and to the best of my knowledge that is the only qualifier out there.  How representative they are of other Muslims is something else.  The article made it pretty clear this is a pretty extreme flavor.

His original comparison to Jim Jones and David Koresh are apt.  Very few Christians would recognize it as a form of Christianity

I didn't think it was all that comparable.  They reminded me very much of Orthodox Jews who spend time trying to do crap like rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and have all these theories about what is going to happen before moshiach shows up.  Nutters who might be potentially dangerous should they ever be in a position to carry out what they think is God's will.  And a tad inconvenient since they are clearly experts on their texts.  But I could be wrong about that.

It is notable that they mention the Koran a lot does not mention the hadiths once.

Who is 'they' and how do you know they never mention the Hadiths?  The Hadiths are kind of a mess anyway from what I understand.

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"   Sounds like he arguing that most Muslims don't know their own religion.

There is no mention of hadiths in the article, and in fact the ideology of the group seems to preclude this important part of Islamic jurisprudence.  Which is why I compare them to primitive baptists and other solo scriptura protestant heresies.  There is a billion Catholics that in the world who take into consideration things other then the bible but I wouldn't describe the Catholic Church as a "Cotton candy" type church (actually a lot of protestants do this as well, but don't admit to it).

[The Brain]

Islam doesn't kill people. Muslims kill people.

[Jacob]

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"   Sounds like he arguing that most Muslims don't know their own religion.

Yeah, that was the weakest part of the article.

[Valmy]

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"   Sounds like he arguing that most Muslims don't know their own religion.

I don't think that is what he was saying at all.  Rather that they some Muslims prefer to have an idealistic view.  And in any case this is this one Islamic Scholar's opinion.

There is no mention of hadiths in the article, and in fact the ideology of the group seems to preclude this important part of Islamic jurisprudence.

Color me skeptical the Islamic State people do not consider the Hadiths.  That seems incredibly unlikely.  That would be as bizarre as those Orthodox Jewish nutters ignoring the Oral Torah, which they are in fact the champions of.  But I could be wrong but that is a claim I find hard to buy.

Which is why I compare them to primitive baptists and other solo scriptura protestant heresies.  There is a billion Catholics that in the world who take into consideration things other then the bible but I wouldn't describe the Catholic Church as a "Cotton candy" type church (actually a lot of protestants do this as well, but don't admit to it).

The 'cotton candy' part would be saying that the Crusades or Inquisition or whatever were 'unchristian' because they were not full of hippy goodness.  I don't see anywhere in this article or anywhere that suggests everybody who does not interpret Islam the same way as the Salafis and the ISIS people are 'cotton candy' Muslims.

[Valmy]

Yeah, that was the weakest part of the article.

Except he was not saying that.

[Admiral Yi]

Based on that snippet he's not saying nonjihadist Muslims don't understand their own religion.  He's saying they do understand it and are ashamed of it.

[grumbler]

Yeah, that was the weakest part of the article.

Except he was not saying that.

No, he was quoting an authority, whom he spent some time building up, as saying that.  "Cotton candy" is a quote from that authority.

[Jacob]

Except he was not saying that.

It may not have said exactly what Raz interprets it as, or it may have. Either way, it was nonetheless the weakest part of the article in my opinion.

[grumbler]

Based on that snippet he's not saying nonjihadist Muslims don't understand their own religion.  He's saying they do understand it and are ashamed of it.

It's the old argument between the original barbarian origins of religions, and their modern applications.  It would be as accurate to say that Christians who understand Christianity, or Jews who understand Judaism, are ashamed of those religions.

[grumbler]

Except he was not saying that.

It may not have said exactly what Raz interprets it as, or it may have. Either way, it was nonetheless the weakest part of the article in my opinion.

Actually, i thought the weakest part was where the author talks about how "[w]e have misunderstood the nature of the Islamic State..." and "Our ignorance of the Islamic State..."  It is incredibly disingenuous to use "we" like this when it is clear that the author doesn't really mean that he is part of the "we."  The honest usage would be "I have misunderstood the nature of the Islamic State..." and "my ignorance of the Islamic State..." if he really means to speak from experience, or else explain who he thinks misunderstood and was ignorant.  The faux "we" gives his subsequent un-sourced speculation a false tinge of authenticity.

[Valmy]

Yeah I agree, and I don't think he is even saying that he personally misunderstood the Islamic state in that way.  Rather I think he is saying we in the West have.  I also found that annoying personally and if he is going to make a point like that I would rather he provide quotes to refute.  Best to just not bother going there.

That drives me nuts in a lot of history books as well, where they presume certain views as being taken for granted on their subject.  I would rather they not bother addressing them and just tell me their position, I can easily decide if any of my preconceived notions were proven wrong.

[Berkut]

Meh, it was a pretty excellent article. The use of "we" in that manner is well understood and not out of the norm. If that is the worst thing about the article, he is in pretty good shape.

Weird that we focus on such minor issues when discussing an article that has much larger scope to it than that...

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah I agree, and I don't think he is even saying that he personally misunderstood the Islamic state in that way.  Rather I think he is saying we in the West have.

Or, even more pointedly, the political leadership in the West.  Because that's never happened before.

However, I for one am glad that grumbler has not misunderstood the nature of the Islamic State.

[grumbler]

Meh, it was a pretty excellent article. The use of "we" in that manner is well understood and not out of the norm. If that is the worst thing about the article, he is in pretty good shape.

Weird that we focus on such minor issues when discussing an article that has much larger scope to it than that...

It is a common misuse of "we" but still a misuse.

It isn't weird that we focus on the things we find weak when discussing the weakest part of the article.  It is a strength of the article that the weakest part is some unnecessary weasel-wording (he could have left out the entire "you guys missed the boat on ISIS" strawman and it wouldn't have weakened the article at all). 

One of the most interesting elements of these fundamentalists is that they are all caught up in the concept of what it means to be a caliph, and what the requirements are, and who was and was not really a caliph, when the whole Islamic concept of the caliphate is not from Mohammed at all.  The idea of the caliph as the successor to Mohammed is a retcon; the Koran mentions King David as a caliph (the only named caliph there, insofar as I know).

[grumbler]

However, I for one am glad that grumbler has not misunderstood the nature of the Islamic State.

Always pleased when my understandings make you glad.