SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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 tathra on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:28PM
ideology is nothing more than a convenient excuse to use to get support in the form of money and followers. take the taliban for example, while they were in power they completely banned opium production [afghanistannewscenter.com] saying that drugs and drug cultivation goes against the Quran, but now that they're out of power they're directly involved in drug trafficking [bbc.com] that began almost immediately after they were ousted.
taliban, al queda, ISIS, westboro baptist church, the KKK, the crusaders, the spanish inquisition, etc, they're all the same - none of them are religious groups at all, religion is just the excuse they use to take power and control people, cherrypicking the religion to use whatever they can to support their personal ideals and beliefs, which have nothing to do with the religion, to sate their lust for power, while ignoring everything in that religion that doesn't support them or directly contradicts their position, and then ditching it whenever it becomes inconvenient (until they can once again use it to seize power and control people).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:42PM
cherrypicking the religion to use whatever they can to support their personal ideals and beliefs, which have nothing to do with the religion, to sate their lust for power, while ignoring everything in that religion that doesn't support them or directly contradicts their position
The really amazing thing is that is exactly what the extremists on the other side do too. Both anti-western islamic extremists and the nuke-em-from-orbit islamaphobes cherry-pick the same parts of islam in order to justify themselves. They are practically two sides of the same coin and in many ways they need each other in order to survive. Its like the islamaphobes actually want the global caliphate bullshit to be true so that they can feel good about wanting to destroy muslims.
Every once in a while one of those loons becomes so frustrated that people won't believe his bullshit that he decides to prove it by doing exactly what he claims to oppose. [splcenter.org]