The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[Viking]

ISIS now uses cats in its propaganda

CdM to enlist in the jihad?

The prophet famously was a cat person and an anti-dog person.

[Viking]

Almost two years ago the citizens of London were victims of a great atrocity.  . . There is nothing in Islam that could ever justify these blatant acts of aggression. Islam calls on Muslims to be productive members of whatever society they find themselves in. Islam embodies a flexibility that allows Muslims to do so without any internal or external conflict. . .

This flexibility is not just present in the cultural output of Muslims; it is an integral part of the Islamic legal tradition as well. In fact, you could say it is one of the defining characteristics of Islamic law. Islamic law is both a methodology and the collection of positions adopted by Muslim jurists over the last 1,400 years. Those centuries were witness to no less than 90 schools of legal thought, and the 21st century finds us in the providential position to look back on this tradition in order to find that which will benefit us today. . . .

Fatwas represent the bridge between the legal tradition and the contemporary world in which we live. They are the link between the past and the present, the absolute and the relative, the theoretical and the practical. For this reason it takes more than just knowledge of Islamic law to issue a fatwa. A Mufti who does not know the contemporary world in which he/she lives is like a person who has the ability to walk and might also have the ability to run. However, they move through a dark path without a light in their hand. It is possible that they will make it, but in most cases they will fall and perish. Muftis must also have an in-depth understanding of the problems that their communities are facing. When those who lack these qualifications issue fatwas the result is the extremism we see today, the kind witnessed on 7/7. . . .[The fatwa is] a tool that is of the utmost importance for reigning in extremism and preserving the flexibility and balance of Islamic law.

. . . Many assume that an Islamic government must be a caliphate, and that the caliph must rule in a set and specific way. There is no basis for this vision within the Islamic tradition. The caliphate is one political solution that Muslims adopted during a certain historical period, but this does not mean that it is the only possible choice for Muslims when it comes to deciding how they should be governed.

. . .

The principles of freedom and human dignity for which liberal democracy stands are themselves part of the foundation for the Islamic world view; it is the achievement of this freedom and dignity within a religious context that Islamic law strives for.

The world has witnessed tremendous change over the last two hundred years. . .. The change of the past 200 years, however, has made it necessary to re-examine how everything works. Meaning that the way in which Islamic law is applied must take into account this change.

The flexibility and adaptability of Islamic law is perhaps its greatest asset. To provide people with practical and relevant guidance while at the same time staying true to its foundational principles, Islam allows the wisdom and moral strength of revelation to be applied in modern times. It is through adopting this attitude towards the shari'a that an authentic, contemporary, "moderate" and tolerant Islam can provide solutions to the problems confronting the Muslim world and the West today. Muslims must hold fast to this tradition in order to stand in the face of those who would use our religion for their own agendas.

This is not from some fringe figure.  It is from the Grand Mufti of Egypt, the head of the Azhar school; in the Sunni world that is as orthodox as it gets.  It represents the viewpoint of the mainstream of traditionalist Islam.

Invoking the antics of ISIS as representative of Islam generally is like saying that the views of Baruch Goldstein are representative of Judaism or Anders Breivik of Christianity or the Unabomber of environmentalism.  It is wrong.

This is pretty much the moral equivalent of the pope saying nice things about atheists and non-catholics.

[Martinus]

This is pretty much the moral equivalent of the pope saying nice things about atheists and non-catholics.

Which, admittedly, made bigger headlines when it happened earlier this year than this story about a mufti.

When he said nice things about gays, it was a "stop the presses moment" too.

[Solmyr]

ISIS now uses cats in its propaganda

CdM to enlist in the jihad?

The prophet famously was a cat person and an anti-dog person.

I just thought that between using the Vicky 2 map and lolcats, ISIS must be targeting Languish for recruitment.

[Viking]

ISIS now uses cats in its propaganda

CdM to enlist in the jihad?

The prophet famously was a cat person and an anti-dog person.

I just thought that between using the Vicky 2 map and lolcats, ISIS must be targeting Languish for recruitment.

Imagine their error when Siegy shows up.

[Malthus]

ISIS now uses cats in its propaganda

CdM to enlist in the jihad?

The prophet famously was a cat person and an anti-dog person.

I just thought that between using the Vicky 2 map and lolcats, ISIS must be targeting Languish for recruitment.

Imagine their error when Siegy shows up.

Keep him fueled with enough Bud Lite, he won't mind who he's beheading. 

[grumbler]

ISIS now uses cats in its propaganda

CdM to enlist in the jihad?

The prophet famously was a cat person and an anti-dog person.

I just thought that between using the Vicky 2 map and lolcats, ISIS must be targeting Languish for recruitment.

Imagine their error when Siegy shows up.

Keep him fueled with enough Bud Lite, he won't mind who he's beheading. 

Now, now.  Be fair.  The only beheadings that he remembers were of those goats he tossed down the wells.  Admittedly, after three Coors Lites he kinda blacks out in an alcohol stupor, so his naked word isn't reliable, but the assertion that he doesn't care whether it is a goat or a sheep is unwarranted, and likely just an attempt to stir up The Brain.

[mongers]

The Pentagon says US forces have carried out 90 raids/sorties/attacks* on ISIS in the last couple of weeks. 

More bombing please.



Haven't heard if this is 90 seperate missions, sorties or instances of actual munitions dropped.

[Sheilbh]

As for the metrics - are "Arabs" particularly more prone to violence compared to other people finding themselves under the same kind of political and economic pressures?

I've not read the rest of this thread but maybe will later (BANK HOLIDAY! )

But I don't even accept this premise. The Middle East is in the grip of a terrible war right now. If you look at the post-war era it's been incredibly (in my stultifyingly) stable. I'd guess that since 1945 there's been more violence in East Asia, South-East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Sub-Continent and Latin America.

My own (neo-con) argument is that a large part of the current violence is precisely because of that stultifying, corrupt, nepotistic stability that's prevailed over the Arab world in the pay of one great power or another since WWI.

The current situation is challenging my views not because I think they're necessarily wrong, but because of the consequences. Most Arab states are not nations. With a couple of exceptions, like Egypt, they don't have a coherent national identity and what held them together were those shades of secularist Arab nationalist kleptocracies. I'm still convinced they need to go.

But I don't know if it's possible that these countries survive the process - Syria, Iraq and Libya as states are all under threat. And if they do survive the process lead to ethnic and sectarian cleansing along the lines of post-war Eastern Europe. Which is grim and leaves me a bit rudderless because I can't think what the end goal will be. I certainly can't see a way for, say, Iraq and Syria to forge a nation at this point.

Or, maybe, empires long divided must unite, long united must divide.

[Queequeg]

But I don't even accept this premise. The Middle East is in the grip of a terrible war right now. If you look at the post-war era it's been incredibly (in my stultifyingly) stable. I'd guess that since 1945 there's been more violence in East Asia, South-East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Sub-Continent and Latin America.

Wait, what?  Iran-Iraq?  How many wars against Israel?  The attempt at unification of the Arab World?

[alfred russel]

10 Chechens (asylum seekers with residence permit in Austria) were arrested at the airport Austria when they wanted to travel to Syria to join the Djihad. Some of them had already been there once. Police was tipped off by other Muslims.

Estimates say that ca. 130 Austrian residents are fighting in Syria, half of them Chechens. Last year, 96 recognized refugees lost their refugee status because of their affiliations to extremist organizations ... all from ... can you guess? Yes, Chechnya.

Still, with 26,000 Chechen refugees you're bound to have a few bad apples between them.

That is more than a few bad apples...the percentage of a population that is eligible to volunteer to fight in a war is low, the proportion that is willing to volunteer lowers that number further, and the percentage with the initiative to leave a first world country to fight in a third party hell hole they have no real connection too much much lower.

65 Chechens out of 26,000 is 0.25%--if Americans volunteered to go over there at the same rate we would have about 750,000 Americans over there. I wonder how that stacks up against the percentage of Americans that went to fight Hitler pre Pearl Harbor.

[Sheilbh]

But I don't even accept this premise. The Middle East is in the grip of a terrible war right now. If you look at the post-war era it's been incredibly (in my stultifyingly) stable. I'd guess that since 1945 there's been more violence in East Asia, South-East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Sub-Continent and Latin America.

Wait, what?  Iran-Iraq?  How many wars against Israel?  The attempt at unification of the Arab World?

Yeah against partition, Bengalese independence and how many Indo-Pak wars? Then there's the Chinese Civil War, the Korean War, the Indochinese war, the Vietnam war and Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, the Congo civil war, the Nigerian civil war, the Ethiopian-Eritrean war, the Sudanese civil war.

Latin America's the only possible doubt but I think the conflicts in Peru and Colombia alone had pretty hefty tolls.

It's not to say the Arab world's uniquely or stably  pacific, but just that we perhaps notice wars there more and that the repressive states operating there did a better job of keeping the peace (or it was too important for too many proxy wars or for too much escalation) than in other parts of the world but they didn't build enduring states or national identity and we're facing the consequences.

That is more than a few bad apples...the percentage of a population that is eligible to volunteer to fight in a war is low, the proportion that is willing to volunteer lowers that number further, and the percentage with the initiative to leave a first world country to fight in a third party hell hole they have no real connection too much much lower.

Yeah that was my thought. There's estimated at 500 Brits (which I find scary) but a bit reassuring too as there's around 2.75 million British Muslims.

[alfred russel]

As for the metrics - are "Arabs" particularly more prone to violence compared to other people finding themselves under the same kind of political and economic pressures?

I've not read the rest of this thread but maybe will later (BANK HOLIDAY! )

But I don't even accept this premise. The Middle East is in the grip of a terrible war right now. If you look at the post-war era it's been incredibly (in my stultifyingly) stable. I'd guess that since 1945 there's been more violence in East Asia, South-East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Sub-Continent and Latin America.

My own (neo-con) argument is that a large part of the current violence is precisely because of that stultifying, corrupt, nepotistic stability that's prevailed over the Arab world in the pay of one great power or another since WWI.

The current situation is challenging my views not because I think they're necessarily wrong, but because of the consequences. Most Arab states are not nations. With a couple of exceptions, like Egypt, they don't have a coherent national identity and what held them together were those shades of secularist Arab nationalist kleptocracies. I'm still convinced they need to go.

But I don't know if it's possible that these countries survive the process - Syria, Iraq and Libya as states are all under threat. And if they do survive the process lead to ethnic and sectarian cleansing along the lines of post-war Eastern Europe. Which is grim and leaves me a bit rudderless because I can't think what the end goal will be. I certainly can't see a way for, say, Iraq and Syria to forge a nation at this point.

Or, maybe, empires long divided must unite, long united must divide.

It is all well and good to talk about borders being under threat, but there is tremendous pressure in the modern world to preserve existing borders and countries. Also, there will be extensive pressure against any sort of pan Arab border alterations--from both the west and Iran.

I'm also not sure how a ethnic and sectarian cleansing would work. After WWII it was fairly straightforward in many ways: Germans go here, Poles here, Ukes here, etc. Each population had a center of gravity where they were a majority and it was relatively easy to build uniform states from those cores. That dynamic is not present in the middle east.

[Sheilbh]

It is all well and good to talk about borders being under threat, but there is tremendous pressure in the modern world to preserve existing borders and countries. Also, there will be extensive pressure against any sort of pan Arab border alterations--from both the west and Iran.

Is there much pressure? I can't think of many countries taking over another's territory, but there's lots of examples of independence movements or states collapsing into lots of smaller states which is roughly what I think would happen.

There may be pressure from the West and Iran but are willing or able to force the Kurds and Sunni in Iraq into a Shia dominated state? Or the Alawites, Christians, Druze and other minorities into a Sunni dominated Syria? The best is maybe try and force 'our' proxy to build a broad base of support and state but that's easier said than done after a sectarian civil war.

I'm also not sure how a ethnic and sectarian cleansing would work. After WWII it was fairly straightforward in many ways: Germans go here, Poles here, Ukes here, etc. Each population had a center of gravity where they were a majority and it was relatively easy to build uniform states from those cores. That dynamic is not present in the middle east.

Apologies for using Vox () but they've maps.

Well there's been some already. See the move in Baghdad from mostly mixed neighbourhood to solidly sectarian districts:


More broadly as it did in Yugoslavia. This is less mixed than Bosnia before the war:


And this is an old idea, but it's reasonable to see what sort of states could emerge:

[Tonitrus]

And this is an old idea, but it's reasonable to see what sort of states could emerge:

:that last map:

Probably the better idea to scale down sectarian violence, however that probably ends up working out to becoming an Assad/Hezbollah-ruled, authoritarion Alawite state, an Iranian-dominated Shia state, Kurdistan as probably a more secular, pseudo-socialist/marxist state (if the PKK influence from Turkey takes hold), and then the Sunni/ISIS Caliphate.

And the latter would probably be at eternal war with its neighbors, so you can toss at that scaled down violence idea.