Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I love that essay but always remember this excellent Ross Douthat's corrective too:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/in-defense-of-islam/?_r=0

[Admiral Yi]

Precis me baby.

[Sheilbh]

Edit: Really short version, it's right to take the theology of ISIS seriously. If we're doing that we also have to take the rest of Islamic theology seriously.

It's right that ISIS have coherent and fully textually rooted Islamic theology. However it is also a profoundly distant theology from the historical tradition of Islam and the way it's been practiced by billions.

Literalist textual fundamentalism whether in Christianity or Islam are modern theologies that are shaped by the encounter of the religious with the modern, liberal secular world. In the particular case of Islam the colonial history matters in the profound difference and failure felt by the Islamic world having fallen so far behind and the existing democratisation of interpretation. The erosion of authority for the traditional clerical-theological establishment has enabled auto-didacts like those running ISIS to develop their own theology (aside - my view is the Sunni crisis of authority is the big issue here). So being anti-secular and illiberal doesn't make them Medieval or authentic against centuries of theological impurities however much they claim it. I'd go further and say that if anything it's what makes them so modern.

There are particular issues with Islamic theology of holy war, church-state and the Prophet as politician. However it is very quickly within the early years of Islam that a theology is established that rules out a lot of what ISIS claim - and that theology of the 7th and 8th century was not in response to impure Western, secular ideas. Additionally the Islam that developed out of that traditional theology and method of interpretation has a far greater claim to authenticity, continuity and 'purity' than ISIS' apocalyptic vision and 'prohetic methodology'.

So even as we acknowledge the obvious and describe ISIS as Islamic, we should give the rest of Islam credit for being, well, Islamic as well, and for having available arguments and traditions and interpretations that marginalized this kind of barbarism in the past, and God willing can do so once again. Those arguments and traditions may not suffice to synthesize Islam fully with Western modernity; whether that's possible (or desirable) is a larger and more complicated debate. But we can reasonably hope that they will suffice intellectually in the face of the Islamic State, whose arguments for its own deep orthodoxy are contradicted by centuries of Muslim theology and tradition, and which is as much at war with the lived historical reality of Islam as it is at war with Christianity, secularism or the West.

[Admiral Yi]

It sounds like a very weighty and well considered position.  However, based just on what you posted here, I'm wondering what, if anything, are the policy ramifications of his conclusions?  Whether they're authentic or inauthentic is not going to affect body count.

[Berkut]

Why would you think that they would have any interest in such an entente?

Do you really think that if ISIS established some permanent political entity they would *stop* encouraging terrorism like Paris or Orlando on the basis of some "entente"?

I don't - if they did, they would not be ISIS anymore. The best we could hope for would be a temporary peace because they decided that peace with the West might be useful for a while so as to allow them to go screw with some other place instead.

I dunno. I mean, sure Iran exports terrorism once in a while but mostly it worries about the near region (Hezbollah, Yemen et. al.), but they're not particularly active in carrying out terrorist acts against the West on Western soil I don't think, and I don't think that world domination under their particular brand of Islam is that high on their practical list of priorities. From where I'm sitting, the Iranian government is not that far removed from what Daesh claims to be about and would eventually transition to if it had the chance (with the obvious differences between Shia and Sunni). I'd expect that should Daesh succeed in establishing a viable state they'd transition to care about the things that actual states care about and transition to somewhere not too far off Iran.

Well, the thesis here seems to be that we should assume ISIS would be like Iran if they achieved their goal of creating a Islamic state under their particular view of Islam.

Why would we assume that to be the case though?

The Iranian theocracy has never displayed the kind of brutality and radical theology of ISIS in any practical sense, and we have a good body of evidence that makes it clear that they have rather limited views of their own reach and scope of rule.

What reason do we have to basically ignore precisely what ISIS claims is their goal should they achieve their short term objectives? Iran is a theocracy, and ISIS wants to be a theocracy, so we should assume that ISIS will operate like Iran based on them both sharing this trait called "Islamic theocracy"?

I am not convinced that is sufficient rational reason to dis-believe them when they tell us exactly what they intend to do should they achieve their "caliphate".

[Berkut]

Edit: Really short version, it's right to take the theology of ISIS seriously. If we're doing that we also have to take the rest of Islamic theology seriously.

It's right that ISIS have coherent and fully textually rooted Islamic theology. However it is also a profoundly distant theology from the historical tradition of Islam and the way it's been practiced by billions.

Literalist textual fundamentalism whether in Christianity or Islam are modern theologies that are shaped by the encounter of the religious with the modern, liberal secular world. In the particular case of Islam the colonial history matters in the profound difference and failure felt by the Islamic world having fallen so far behind and the existing democratisation of interpretation. The erosion of authority for the traditional clerical-theological establishment has enabled auto-didacts like those running ISIS to develop their own theology (aside - my view is the Sunni crisis of authority is the big issue here). So being anti-secular and illiberal doesn't make them Medieval or authentic against centuries of theological impurities however much they claim it. I'd go further and say that if anything it's what makes them so modern.

There are particular issues with Islamic theology of holy war, church-state and the Prophet as politician. However it is very quickly within the early years of Islam that a theology is established that rules out a lot of what ISIS claim - and that theology of the 7th and 8th century was not in response to impure Western, secular ideas. Additionally the Islam that developed out of that traditional theology and method of interpretation has a far greater claim to authenticity, continuity and 'purity' than ISIS' apocalyptic vision and 'prohetic methodology'.

So even as we acknowledge the obvious and describe ISIS as Islamic, we should give the rest of Islam credit for being, well, Islamic as well, and for having available arguments and traditions and interpretations that marginalized this kind of barbarism in the past, and God willing can do so once again. Those arguments and traditions may not suffice to synthesize Islam fully with Western modernity; whether that's possible (or desirable) is a larger and more complicated debate. But we can reasonably hope that they will suffice intellectually in the face of the Islamic State, whose arguments for its own deep orthodoxy are contradicted by centuries of Muslim theology and tradition, and which is as much at war with the lived historical reality of Islam as it is at war with Christianity, secularism or the West.

This is all a great argument for why we should support and do whatever we can to promote "moderate" islamic thought in contrast to Islamism and jihadism.

However, it does nothing to address the point of what ISIS wants. Just because you can make a good argument that they are wrong about who is the "true" Islam, that isn't likely to be convincing to them.

[Sheilbh]

What's the policy implications of the Woods' Atlantic piece?

My own view in part is that the Sunni world has a crisis of authority (and has had since the Caliph was deposed after WW1). In that space you've had Saudi theology become increasingly important, Salafism is probably the fastest growing school of theology in the Sunni world, and while ISIS are exceptionally bloodthirsty they are not exceptionally literalist. Even non-Salafi Sunni scholars have tended to emphasise their textual authority.

I think that's the key theological issue. I don't see any answer coming up soon to that problem of how to refute ISIS' claims and theology when it seems like Sunni theology has, over the last century, in part got into this position by democratising interpretation and the dominant theory has been purely textual, mostly literalist. You know it's like Luther looking on Munster.

[Sheilbh]

This is all a great argument for why we should support and do whatever we can to promote "moderate" islamic thought in contrast to Islamism and jihadism.

However, it does nothing to address the point of what ISIS wants. Just because you can make a good argument that they are wrong about who is the "true" Islam, that isn't likely to be convincing to them.

I've no argument with you about what ISIS wants. The only point I'd make is that if you take their theology seriously then their claim to represent a purer more authentic form of Islam is important. It's a key part of their rhetoric and identity as a 'state'. So refuting it is important and my view is that the answer to ISIS theologically and, perhaps, ideologically actually lies within Islam. This sort of barbarism isn't unprecedented and its answer is traditional, historical Islam.

As I say how you use that answer in a context where you've a century of denigrating theological tradition and returning to the sources is more difficult.

[Berkut]

This is all a great argument for why we should support and do whatever we can to promote "moderate" islamic thought in contrast to Islamism and jihadism.

However, it does nothing to address the point of what ISIS wants. Just because you can make a good argument that they are wrong about who is the "true" Islam, that isn't likely to be convincing to them.

I've no argument with you about what ISIS wants. The only point I'd make is that if you take their theology seriously then their claim to represent a purer more authentic form of Islam is important. It's a key part of their rhetoric and identity as a 'state'. So refuting it is important and my view is that the answer to ISIS theologically and, perhaps, ideologically actually lies within Islam. This sort of barbarism isn't unprecedented and its answer is traditional, historical Islam.

Are you arguing with me on this point? I really cannot tell, since you just pretty much re-stated my point while couching it in terms that sound like you are refuting something.

As I say how you use that answer in a context where you've a century of denigrating theological tradition and returning to the sources is more difficult.

LOL.

Yes, it is tough to fight against one form of superstition when most human progress has been predicated on rejecting superstition in general. But such is the nature of irrational belief, sometimes you have to deal with the reality of various different irrational beliefs.

Granted, the ideal solution would be for all the Muslims to just stop being Muslim altogether, but since that isn't one of the reasonable options, we are left with how we deal with the radicals who are an actual existential threat to us, rather than the more benign irrational superstitious people.

Granted, Mormons are just as objectively silly as ISIS in many ways, but we don't really have a problem with them getting a nuke and killing a few hundred thousand of us.

[Admiral Yi]

What's the policy implications of the Woods' Atlantic piece?

If he's right, it's a fight to the death.  Either we kill them or they kill us.

[The Brain]

If we make ISIS chancellor we can control them.

[dps]

So refuting it is important and my view is that the answer to ISIS theologically and, perhaps, ideologically actually lies within Islam. This sort of barbarism isn't unprecedented and its answer is traditional, historical Islam.

That suggests that the policy we ought to follow is just to wait for the Muslims to sort it out for themselves.  That doesn't seem practical.

[garbon]

So refuting it is important and my view is that the answer to ISIS theologically and, perhaps, ideologically actually lies within Islam. This sort of barbarism isn't unprecedented and its answer is traditional, historical Islam.

That suggests that the policy we ought to follow is just to wait for the Muslims to sort it out for themselves.  That doesn't seem practical.

It doesn't? Not like our interventions to date seem really great.

[Berkut]

So refuting it is important and my view is that the answer to ISIS theologically and, perhaps, ideologically actually lies within Islam. This sort of barbarism isn't unprecedented and its answer is traditional, historical Islam.

That suggests that the policy we ought to follow is just to wait for the Muslims to sort it out for themselves.  That doesn't seem practical.

I think to some extent that is what Obama is doing, and I think it has largely been successful.

Stay out of it in an overt sense, while providing considerable and direct military aid where we can, but being careful to stay out of the rhetorical war.

I don't entirely agree with this strategy, but I can see the reason behind it, and cannot entirely fault it.

[Zoupa]

Yeah, sometimes negotiation makes sense, other times not. It somewhat made sense to try negotiating with the Taliban, they had a narrower set of goals focused on Afghanistan, and conceivably would've been willing to maybe put down their weapons in exchange for a seat at the table. Various Afghani warlords had agreed to peace already; it ends up the Taliban maybe won't come to a settlement, but it at least made sense to try.

I'd agree on  Assad, he has interests and goals that could coincide with ours. I see little to no overlap over ISIS, their ideology is apocalyptic and they believe in permanent, continuous war against infidels and apostates (so all Muslims who don't ascribed to their specific sect of Wahhabist-inspired fundamentalism, and all non-Muslims), there can be no meaningful overlap of goals and thus negotiation makes little sense.

I agree with most of this. I disagree on Assad. There is no way to destroy ISIS that doesn't involve destroying Assad first.

How do you figure? The Russians seem to be doing just that.