Related to the earlier discussion about where ISIS gets its weapons, I wanted to share this great in-depth article from The Atlantic about the motivations of ISIS. Then In order to provide a more nuanced view of ISIS, here is criticism of that Atlantic article from thinkprogress.org.
From the Atlantic:
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.
We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.
The thinkprogress.org criticism by one of the primary sources cited in the Atlantic article:
One of the oft-mentioned criticisms of The Atlantic piece is that it echoed the inaccurate belief that since ISIS’s theology draws upon Islamic texts to justify its horrendous practices, it is an inevitable product of Islam. Haykel didn’t say whether or not he thought Wood’s article says as much, but when ThinkProgress asked him directly whether Islamic texts and theology necessitate the creation of groups like ISIS, he was unequivocal.
“No,” he said. “I think that ISIS is a product of very contingent, contextual, historical factors. There is nothing predetermined in Islam that would lead to ISIS.”
He was similarly unambiguous when responding to the related critique that Muslims who disavow ISIS are somehow deluded or not “real” Muslims.
“I consider people … who have criticized ISIS to be fully within the Islamic tradition, and in no way ‘less Muslim’ than ISIS,” he said. “I mean, that’s absurd.”
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday April 30 2015, @12:02PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Informative) by threedigits on Thursday April 30 2015, @01:40PM
For your information, the "various invasions" (really only one) of Spain is said to have begun because a Christian king (Achila II) outsourced it's war effort to the neighbouring moor king and then refused to pay, so the soldiers decided to stay and keep the land they had won for themselves.
Far from what ISIS is doing today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:14PM
> Muhammad's conquest of Mecca, a couple of years after signing a 10-year peace treaty with them springs to mind as the earliest one.
I looked that up, seems like 2 years into the treaty the other side reneged and attacked Mo's buddies.
Perhaps you have more in depth knowledge.
I would like to see a citation from an academic source that is not pushing an agenda.
Can you help me out?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:21PM
Right, but also,
Most people don't read deeply enough into History to realize that the Crusades were a defensive action to push Muslims back after they had already violently invaded (not by stealth, not peacefully) much of the middle east, and the holy lands, and were starting to take on southern Europe with the invasion of Spain.
Some also think the Crusades were an abject failure, and never had a chance of success (because the Crusaders never intended to occupy the lands). Other scholars suggest that they were moderately effective as a delaying tactic.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:24PM
History fail.
Jerusalem was conquered [wikipedia.org] by the Rashidun Caliphate in 637, while the First Crusade [wikipedia.org] was launched in 1096. That's a 459 years difference, so no "Crusades were a defensive action to push Muslims back". Also, the conquest of Spain was in 711, again more than 300 years before. Claiming any of them as a reason for the Crusades is like claiming that we reached the moon because of Leonardo da Vinci.