Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:02AM   Printer-friendly
from the someone-make-up-my-mind dept.
calmond writes:

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.”

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday April 30 2015, @12:02PM

    by TheRaven (270) on Thursday April 30 2015, @12:02PM (#177041) Journal
    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. The various invasions of Spain as later ones.
    --
    sudo mod me up
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by threedigits on Thursday April 30 2015, @01:40PM

    by threedigits (607) on Thursday April 30 2015, @01:40PM (#177070)

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:14PM (#177141)

    > 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

    by frojack (1554) on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:21PM (#177169) Journal

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2015, @01:24PM (#181923)

      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.