What ISIS Really Wants

[SP33Demon]

never did I do that.

I also never suggested that it would fix everything. Again, you see what you want to see. You aren't very aware of the things around you, are you?

My interpretation of the article is 100% legit that ideology is the root cause. Reread the article. Everything I bolded has been validated by the Koran/Muhammad. Maybe you haven't thought of it that way, but all of the violence you are seeing today (Mali hotel just shot up is the latest news) has its roots in the Koran and Muhammad. What validates an offensive jihad? A caliphate. What validates that a caliphate = offensive jihad? The Koran. What defines an offensive jihad and its rules of conduct? The Koran. What says crucifying enemies and enslaving their women and children is ok and who did this historically? The Koran, and Muhammad did it. So on and so forth.

Like the leading expert from Princeton said: Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.” Sunni muslims cannot dispute that ISIS isn't doing it by the book, because they are. Want to know something scary? Of the total Muslim population, 10-13% are Shia Muslims and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims.
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslim-population/

So Shias (a huge minority of 10-13%) can dispute the legitimacy of ISIS, but 90% of all muslims cannot dispute that ISIS is legit from a scripture standpoint.

The book is the problem.

 

[sm625]

Instead of asking what ISIS wants, you should ask what do the funders of ISIS want? What do the armers of ISIS want? ISIS is pretty easy to understand. It's a tit for tat reactionary response. But the motivations of these other people, that is far more confounding.

 

[SP33Demon]

Instead of asking what ISIS wants, you should ask what do the funders of ISIS want? What do the armers of ISIS want? ISIS is pretty easy to understand. It's a tit for tat reactionary response. But the motivations of these other people, that is far more confounding.

You have to be kidding. ISIS is rich because of oil, not just donations. They are self sufficient and could probably easily survive without any donors at all. However, you are right in the sense of who is buying the oil? And why are we not prosecuting them? From the article link below - "We wonder how long until someone finally asks the all important question regarding the Islamic State: who is the commodity trader breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has? One other important thing to note - oil prices are low for a reason. Start eliminating ISIS stores of fuel and it will affect every American at the pump. Still in a rush to bomb them? Money is the root of all evil, they say.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-19/most-important-question-about-isis-nobody-asking

According to the Iraq Energy Institute, an independent, nonprofit policy organization focused on Iraq’s energy sector, the army of radical Islamists controls production of 30,000 barrels of oil a day in Iraq and 50,000 barrels in Syria. By selling the oil on the black market at a discounted price of $40 per barrel (compared to about $93 per barrel in the free market), ISIS takes in $3.2 million a day.

The oil revenue, which amounts to nearly $100 million each month, allows ISIS to fund its military and terrorist attacks — and to attract more recruits from around the world, including America.

Do you realize that ISIS is making more than Amazon (1 billion a year in profits) off oil alone?

Other souces of funding:
http://www.dailyo.in/politics/isis-...l-funding-human-trafficking/story/1/7468.html

Antiquities
Ransom
International donors
Looting of Iraqi banks
Auctioning of government houses
Sale of Sulphuric acid, cement and phosphate
Heavy taxation and extortion
Sex slave trafficking

 

[CitizenKain]

Sure they can. If I have time I can compile a list of recruits from Western countries who have been radicalized at their local mosque. Take away the violent ideology and the mosques have no leg to stand on. If the muslims really wanted to change their scripture from slavery/crucifixation/killing, they would. The problem with that is if they removed such things, then their religion would look very similar to the Bible's NT which preaches to love your enemy and help them (polar opposite of the Koran).

So why is it that a billion plus Muslims are not constantly murdering everyone? If you want to claim the bible is all about loving and helping then LOL.

 

[SP33Demon]

So why is it that a billion plus Muslims are not constantly murdering everyone? If you want to claim the bible is all about loving and helping then LOL.

Mainly because a caliphate has to wage official jihad. Now that it has happened, you're about to see a lot more violence. In October:

Islamic State called on Muslims to launch a "holy war" against Russians and Americans over what it called their "crusaders' war" in the Middle East, an audio message distributed by supporters of the ultra hardline group said on Tuesday.

 

[FrankRamiro]

Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim Terrorists are so quick to commit suicide.
Lets have a look at the evidence:



- No Christmas
- No television
- No nude women
- No football
- No pork chops
- No hot dogs
- No burgers
- No beer
- No bacon
- Rags for clothes
- Towels for hats
- Constant wailing from some idiot in a tower
- More than one wife
- More than one mother in law
- You can't shave
- Your wife can't shave
- You can't wash off the smell of donkey
- and your wife smells worse than your donkey
- You cook over burning fire of camel shit
- Your wife is picked by someone else for you
- Women dress to look like garbage bags at the curb
- Your government is a dictatorship.

Then they tell you that "when you die, it all gets better"??

Well no shit Sherlock!....
It's not like it could get much worse

THE MUSLIMS ARE NOT HAPPY!

They're not happy in Gaza ....
They're not happy in Egypt ..
They're not happy in Libya ....
They're not happy in Morocco ..
They're not happy in Iran ...
They're not happy in Iraq ..
They're not happy in Yemen ...
They're not happy in Afghanistan ..
They're not happy in Pakistan ..
They're not happy in Syria ..
They're not happy in Lebanon ..

SO, WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY?

They're happy in Australia .
They're happy in Canada ....
They're happy in England ....
They're happy in France .....
They're happy in Italy ...........
They're happy in Germany.
They're happy in Sweden ...
They're happy in the USA .
They're happy in Norway ....
They're happy in Holland ......
They're happy in Denmark .

Basically, they're happy in every country that is not Muslim
and unhappy in every country that is!

AND WHO DO THEY BLAME?
Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.

THEY BLAME US, THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN
AND THEN; They want to change those countries to be like....
THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY!

You did not mention;Free drugs

 

[cubby1223]

So why is it that a billion plus Muslims are not constantly murdering everyone?

Why is it that a million plus U.S. law enforcement officers are not constantly murdering black people?

 

[woolfe9998]

You guys just don't get it, do you?

Westerners have no place inserting themselves into an argument between moderates and jihadists among Muslims, much less to take the side of the jihadists. Doh! It doesn't matter how "hard line" their scriptures are. We don't want to be telling moderates that they are disobeying their religion by being moderates, and that the jihadists have had it right all along.

I don't care if it's "true." People interpret their religion how they see fit. Christians these days are behaving better than Muslims, but that was not always the case through the long history that both religions have co-existed. If the Muslim scriptures are indeed more warlike than the Christian scriptures - and they probably are - then why have Christians not consistently throughout history behaved better than Muslims? The reason is obvious: because the content of the scriptures does not strictly control the behavior of religious people, in spite of their claim that it does. In the past, Christians didn't behave worse than Muslims because their scriptures are worse - they aren't. Likewise, in the present, Christians do not behave better than Muslims because their scriptures are better either. Rather, today they behave better because Christians mainly exist in a modern society which has experienced a largely secular enlightenment and this has "tamed" Christianity. No such secular enlightenment has occurred in the Islamic world because they are culturally behind the west, on a slower time line.

Given that we know this to be the case, why again are we off "studying the Koran" and taking the side of the jihadists against the moderates in Islam on questions of interpretation of their own scriptures? This constant prattling about, "when are our leaders going to acknowledge this is a problem with Islam" is just plain stupid. The whole "religion of peace" formulation, which originally came from the Bush administration, was so that Muslims world wide would not think that the west considered itself to be at war with all Islam. This is because we don't want more Muslims to support the terrorists since that would be, uh, bad for US security. Get it?

If this problem with Islamic terrorism is ever going to be solved, it will be solved from within, by moderates and other non-violent Muslims arguing against the radicals. How does our telling the moderates and non-violent ones that they are wrong about their own religion help with that?

God you people are so freaking dense.

 

[cubby1223]

You guys just don't get it, do you?

I'm glad you are the enlightened one with all the right answers!

 

[shira]

What ISIS Really Wants
Article by the Atlantic that everyone interested in learning more about ISIS should read. It clearly outlines why the ideology is the root cause, and not poverty/lack of education/skin color/government/[insert variable here] etc. Bombing does nothing when the ideology will just as quickly replace them. Outside of death and physically taking land from the caliphate, there is nothing we can do will appease them so the only way for peace is to change the ideology. In my opinion, this will mean muslim leaders of a new and legitimate, peaceful caliphate rewording and/or reinterpreting the text to be more peaceful to take away their rallying catalyst.

Some snippets:


So yeah, maybe it's time to look into invalidating certain core texts/teachings since the article's only solution for muslims is to become extremely conservative Salafi (which would still adhere to slavery/crucification at a later date) who is peaceful - for now.

This is just a portion of the long article which extensively discusses things like ISIS orgin, its bad relationship with AQ, and ISIS sympathizers who are visa-less in other countries and "stuck" with no way to travel to Syria that is mandated by the Koran to do if a caliphate has emerged.

Thoughts?

Thanks for this article. It makes very clear why so many Westerners are attracted to ISIS, even with its horrific brutality on display almost daily. Adherents to ISIS obviously believe ISIS is the only path to "salvation."

Of course, most modern Christians have no problem abandoning practices clearly supported in the Bible (such as slavery and polygamy) that modernity has taught us are immoral. And "most" applies to Muslims, too, rejecting the old ways. Unfortunately, if even 0.01% of Muslims believe that Islam as described in the Koran is the only true Islam, that's still 1.6 million who FULLY support what ISIS is doing.

 

[shira]

I agree the article says that Poverty/education are part of the equation (which I disagree with) and that the ideology is the problem (I agree with this). Amazing that you cannot grasp that the main issue is ideology when you're not too busy hurling insults like a mental midget at an adult discussion. You brought up the tired liberal argument that "education and poverty will fix everything" and got called out on it and were provided the examples of specific AQ and ISIS foreign soil attackers. Next you'll probably start claiming we need to show them more love with "open borders". Liberal solutions are flawed and outdated. It's time to get tough with these assholes. Do you agree?

Furthermore - where is your evidence that education and non-poverty can defeat ISIS radicalization or even muslim radicalization in general? Where is your evidence of Koran scripture that is peaceful (e.g. that forbids warfare if their Allah is insulted)? Show me proof.

Zinfamous just got done saying that "education and non-poverty" CANNOT defeat ISIS.

See? This article never argues that the traditional and very real issues of poverty, education, failed systems of government aren't a problem. It merely says that you can't focus on those to the exclusion of ignoring what is a very specific problem with ISIS.

In fact, his whole post was about just that point. But here you are, insisting that when a "liberal" says that poverty and ignorance are NOT the ultimate cause of ISIS, they're actually saying that getting rid of poverty and ignorance ARE the solution.

So you realize how stupid you are?

 

[shira]

If this problem with Islamic terrorism is ever going to be solved, it will be solved from within, by moderates and other non-violent Muslims arguing against the radicals. How does our telling the moderates and non-violent ones that they are wrong about their own religion help with that?

I'm very, very doubtful that a dialogue between radical and non-radical Muslims will stop ISIS. If someone is a true believer of any stripe, no one is going to be able to argue them out of their ideology. It never happens here on ATPN, and it's never going to happen out in the real world where the stakes are so much higher.

Unfortunately, destroying the "Caliphate" is the only way to end the violence traceable to ISIS, because the existence of the caliphate allows this flavor of radical Muslim to fulfill what they believe is the only road to salvation - swearing allegiance and following the orders of the Caliph. Without the caliphate, they have no motivation toward violent acts.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm very, very doubtful that a dialogue between radical and non-radical Muslims will stop ISIS. If someone is a true believer of any stripe, no one is going to be able to argue them out of their ideology. It never happens here on ATPN, and it's never going to happen out in the real world where the stakes are so much higher.

Unfortunately, destroying the "Caliphate" is the only way to end the violence traceable to ISIS, because the existence of the caliphate allows this flavor of radical Muslim to fulfill what they believe is the only road to salvation - swearing allegiance and following the orders of the Caliph. Without the caliphate, they have no motivation toward violent acts.

Short run, that is probably true. Long term, it's more complicated than that. It isn't literally about some moderate arguing with some jihadist and causing them to change their minds. Once they're radicalized, there is likely no turning back.

However, jihadists exist generally because there is a lot of tolerance for them among conservative, religious Muslims, who constitute of the bulk of all Muslims. The vast majority of these people aren't terrorists, but many of them dislike the US and its foreign policy. Many also think westerners hate Muslims, and they have good reason for thinking so. These radicals are drawn from this population of conservative religious Muslims. If these conservatives are more pro-western because we aren't constantly criticizing their religion, they won't supply the same number of recruits for groups like ISIS. Also, their arguments can directly influence those who have not yet radicalized but might otherwise have radicalized in the future. My point was that arguing Islam is inherently violent and radical makes it more likely for Muslims to join groups like ISIS.

While I didn't word it as artfully as I could, that's really what I meant when I said that in the long run, the problem is going to have to be solved within Islam and these negative opinions we're hearing from westerners about Islam is not helping matters.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm glad you are the enlightened one with all the right answers!

If you've got a better answer, then respond to the points I made. If you do not, I will assume it's because you cannot.

 

[werepossum]

When reasons such as Poverty, Education, etc are proposed as reasons it is not addressing the motivations of the various Leaders of various movements. It addresses the motivations of those who find the Leaders/Organizations attractive and choose to support it.

Nazi Germany is the perfect example of that in action. The German people supported Hitler not because his spewing of hatred and bile was shared by them, but because they were in a shitty situation. Hitler fanned the flames and gave them something to throw blame on. The promise of solving their shitty situation caused Germans to enthusiastically follow Hitler and the Nazi Party to some better place, as they saw it.

That's not to say that there is nothing wrong with Islam. It clearly contains a very malleable message perfect for ISIS and other groups to formulate their BS around. In fact, these groups are likely inspired by it and not just using it as a tool to convince others.

This is the part that the left is apparently incapable of understanding. Islam doesn't contain a "very malleable message perfect for ISIS and other groups to formulate their BS around". It contains a very specific, very violent ideology which allows no deviation and to which ISIS is adhering to the very letter. As the article attempts to point out, that is precisely the reason that legitimate but not evil Islamic authorities have such a difficult time criticizing ISIS, why their denunciations always seem so useless to non-Muslims. Because ISIS is so precisely following the words of Muhammed, legitimate Islamic authorities have to walk a tight rope to say "don't do what they do" without denouncing the prophet's orders to do what they do.

 

[werepossum]

Thanks for this article. It makes very clear why so many Westerners are attracted to ISIS, even with its horrific brutality on display almost daily. Adherents to ISIS obviously believe ISIS is the only path to "salvation."

Of course, most modern Christians have no problem abandoning practices clearly supported in the Bible (such as slavery and polygamy) that modernity has taught us are immoral. And "most" applies to Muslims, too, rejecting the old ways. Unfortunately, if even 0.01% of Muslims believe that Islam as described in the Koran is the only true Islam, that's still 1.6 million who FULLY support what ISIS is doing.

I suspect you are correct. Although Wolfe has a point that Christianity was fixed from inside a thousand years after Christ, Christianity has two fundamental differences. First, Christianity makes no attempt to establish a secular code, only a spiritual one. Therefore Christianity is always incomplete without some larger secular structure, whereas a fundamental tenant of Islam is establishing a caliphate to replace all secular structures. Second and far more importantly, Christianity comes to us from many human sources, none of which are Jesus himself and none of which are presumed to be infallible. Where the Bible is contradictory, it's thus not that big a deal; even divinely inspired men can make mistakes or introduce their own biases. Islam comes down from the teachings of one man, Mohammed, who IS presumed to be infallible, through his contemporary followers. Thus when the Quran has contradictions, the only possible answer is that Allah changed his mind. Unfortunately for the world, the Quran has the good stuff in the front and the evil stuff in the back. Rejecting the evil stuff requires admitting that Mohammed was not infallible. Or at the least, that the men who recorded his words and witnessed his deeds were complete liars. Neither is an easy thing for a religion. Islamic authorities who wish to make Islam a force for good have a much more difficult road than did medieval Christian authorities.

 

[sportage]

They want a war against our two ideologies, our religions.
ISIS wants American troops back "in" the middle east for this war or for them what is their Armageddon.
I think Obama realizes this and is probably the only one not falling for this tactic.
This tactic to pull America back into an never ending culture war.

ISIS wants to unite all Muslims against Christianity.
And once united as one, we will never hear of the term ISIS again because ISIS would have done their job.
The label or name of an united Muslim religion would be something new, surely not the term ISIS.
Something completely new.

What is really terrifying and to fear is how willingly current republican candidates are to engage America into that holy war.
Thinking ISIS is the enemy to target, where ISIS is nothing more than the instigator to bring this war about.
If we fall for this little trick, and Muslims do in fact unite, America would not be fighting ISIS, we would be fighting a holy war against the Muslim religion as a whole.
And how many Muslims are there again throughout the world????
Billions? More?
THAT is the war we would be waging.
And THAT is the war ISIS hopes to bring about.
And every one of the republican candidates up there are more than willing to start this war to end all wars. The true Armageddon.
Yeah go ahead and elect Donald, or Rubio, or Jeb or old Ben.
See where that leads America into.

And I suspect Obama is probably the only adult in the room that fully realizes this.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

These are all very small groups or Individuals. By any definition, exceptions to the rule.

Except ISIS (along with other radical groups) have attracted professional types and college educated individuals from the West well beyond those examples you are inferring as being the exception, rather than the rule.

The truth of the matter is that groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda are tapping into and readily recruiting significant numbers of muslims in Europe, the US, Australia, etc who view the West as a materialist wasteland devoid of the radical and extremist spiritualism they seem to crave and that is glorified by sects of Islam that preach the Koran in a literal and extremist manner which they believe is the norm for Islam and not the exception. Additionally even "moderate" muslims hold similar views in many of the same areas ability to a lesser extent where they tend to nod silently rather than lash out.

E.g. -It's Not the ''Radical Shaykh'' it's Islam - Fahad Qureshi-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1dgpUhttps://youtu.be/bV710c1dgpU?t=19

**Note no one is starving, this group is not made up of poor illiterates, etc.

All of which transcends and puts a huge damper on the argument by those on the left in the West that these groups are made up of entirely illiterate peasant farmers who are brainwashed because they don't have enough to eat or they can't read.

 

[sandorski]

Except ISIS (along with other radical groups) have attracted professional types and college educated individuals from the West well beyond those examples you are inferring as being the exception, rather than the rule.

The truth of the matter is that groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda are tapping into and readily recruiting significant numbers of muslims in Europe, the US, Australia, etc who view the West as a materialist wasteland devoid of the radical and extremist spiritualism they seem to crave and that is glorified by sects of Islam that preach the Koran in a literal and extremist manner which they believe is the norm for Islam and not the exception.

E.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1dgpUhttps://youtu.be/bV710c1dgpU?t=19

All of which transcends and puts a huge damper on the argument that these groups are made up of entirely illiterate peasant farmers.

The vast majority of ISIS members are locals to where ISIS exists and not the West.

 

[sandorski]

You guys just don't get it, do you?

Westerners have no place inserting themselves into an argument between moderates and jihadists among Muslims, much less to take the side of the jihadists. Doh! It doesn't matter how "hard line" their scriptures are. We don't want to be telling moderates that they are disobeying their religion by being moderates, and that the jihadists have had it right all along.

I don't care if it's "true." People interpret their religion how they see fit. Christians these days are behaving better than Muslims, but that was not always the case through the long history that both religions have co-existed. If the Muslim scriptures are indeed more warlike than the Christian scriptures - and they probably are - then why have Christians not consistently throughout history behaved better than Muslims? The reason is obvious: because the content of the scriptures does not strictly control the behavior of religious people, in spite of their claim that it does. In the past, Christians didn't behave worse than Muslims because their scriptures are worse - they aren't. Likewise, in the present, Christians do not behave better than Muslims because their scriptures are better either. Rather, today they behave better because Christians mainly exist in a modern society which has experienced a largely secular enlightenment and this has "tamed" Christianity. No such secular enlightenment has occurred in the Islamic world because they are culturally behind the west, on a slower time line.

Given that we know this to be the case, why again are we off "studying the Koran" and taking the side of the jihadists against the moderates in Islam on questions of interpretation of their own scriptures? This constant prattling about, "when are our leaders going to acknowledge this is a problem with Islam" is just plain stupid. The whole "religion of peace" formulation, which originally came from the Bush administration, was so that Muslims world wide would not think that the west considered itself to be at war with all Islam. This is because we don't want more Muslims to support the terrorists since that would be, uh, bad for US security. Get it?

If this problem with Islamic terrorism is ever going to be solved, it will be solved from within, by moderates and other non-violent Muslims arguing against the radicals. How does our telling the moderates and non-violent ones that they are wrong about their own religion help with that?

God you people are so freaking dense.

Part of the problem with the framing of Islam as equal to ISIS is from Christians who are merely trying to step in as the solution to fundamentalist Islam. It's an attempt at being a relevant player in the world.

Unfortunately it is not a solution as they already had centuries to convert Muslims to little or no affect.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The vast majority of ISIS members are locals to where ISIS exists and not the West.

Yet those from the region who are part of ISIS also aren't poor, illiterate brainwashed peasants. Many of them come from Gulf states which are oil rich or were part of the old Saddam controlled elements of the Iraqi army itself.

 

[MongGrel]

If we are going to be blunt about it, Daesh want's to be Saudi Arabia.

If they ever did establish a large Caliphate solidly, I would not be surprised to see the entire UAE jump on board with them.

Just my two cents.

They want a war against our two ideologies, our religions.
ISIS wants American troops back "in" the middle east for this war or for them what is their Armageddon.
I think Obama realizes this and is probably the only one not falling for this tactic.
This tactic to pull America back into an never ending culture war.

ISIS wants to unite all Muslims against Christianity.
And once united as one, we will never hear of the term ISIS again because ISIS would have done their job.
The label or name of an united Muslim religion would be something new, surely not the term ISIS.
Something completely new.

What is really terrifying and to fear is how willingly current republican candidates are to engage America into that holy war.
Thinking ISIS is the enemy to target, where ISIS is nothing more than the instigator to bring this war about.
If we fall for this little trick, and Muslims do in fact unite, America would not be fighting ISIS, we would be fighting a holy war against the Muslim religion as a whole.
And how many Muslims are there again throughout the world????
Billions? More?
THAT is the war we would be waging.
And THAT is the war ISIS hopes to bring about.
And every one of the republican candidates up there are more than willing to start this war to end all wars. The true Armageddon.
Yeah go ahead and elect Donald, or Rubio, or Jeb or old Ben.
See where that leads America into.

And I suspect Obama is probably the only adult in the room that fully realizes this.

+1

 

[Grooveriding]

Part of the problem with the framing of Islam as equal to ISIS is from Christians who are merely trying to step in as the solution to fundamentalist Islam. It's an attempt at being a relevant player in the world.

Unfortunately it is not a solution as they already had centuries to convert Muslims to little or no affect.

I think this hits on it to a certain degree. What Christianity and Judaism has done, that Islam has not, is moderate their dogma, temper their extreme messages and in some cases discard or attempt to ignore what is deemed unacceptable about their teachings these days.

Islam is due for a similar watering down that we've seen from the other Abrahamic religions. All three claim their books are the literal truth and supposed word of some god they've created to worship. Islam has yet to govern the extreme nature of that supposed literal truth and the whack jobs on the fringe are using this as some twisted inspiration. You get a group like ISIS using the extreme messaging to push their agenda and indoctrinate people into the fold with it.

Just imagine if we saw the same approach being taken with all the hogwash in the old testament; genocide, slavery, sanctioned killings, misogyny etc. All these religions have twisted world views and anyone taking them literally, rather than picking and choosing the good parts and discarding the madness, are putting themselves into a dangerous state of mind.

It would be worth examining why Islam has not received the watering down that the other religions have. I think this is largely because you have countries using Islamic religion as law. The irrationality of religious beliefs are very dangerous when you treat them as the law of the land and give political power to religious leaders. This has allowed them to keep the archaic worldview of religion intact, contrasted to what we've seen from Christianity and Judaism being forced to conform and become moderate in nations where their stories and mythologies are unacceptable as rule of law.

 

[sandorski]

Yet those from the region who are part of ISIS also aren't poor, illiterate brainwashed peasants. Many of them come from Gulf states who oil rich or were part of the old Saddam controlled elements of the Iraqi army itself.

Iraq and Syria are not exactly well off by Western standards or even Gulf State standards, especially after many years of war.

 

[MongGrel]

I think this hits on it to a certain degree. What Christianity and Judaism has done, that Islam has not, is moderate their dogma, temper their extreme messages and in some cases discard or attempt to ignore what is deemed unacceptable about their teachings these days.

Islam is due for a similar watering down that we've seen from the other Abrahamic religions. All three claim their books are the literal truth and supposed word of some god they've created to worship. Islam has yet to govern the extreme nature of that supposed literal truth and the whack jobs on the fringe are using this as some twisted inspiration. You get a group like ISIS using the extreme messaging to push their agenda and indoctrinate people into the fold with it.

Just imagine if we saw the same approach being taken with all the hogwash in the old testament; genocide, slavery, sanctioned killings, misogyny etc. All these religions have twisted world views and anyone taking them literally, rather than picking and choosing the good parts and discarding the madness, are putting themselves into a dangerous state of mind.

It would be worth examining why Islam has not received the watering down that the other religions have. I think this is largely because you have countries using Islamic religion as law. The irrationality of religious beliefs are very dangerous when you treat them as the law of the land and give political power to religious leaders. This has allowed them to keep the archaic worldview of religion intact, contrasted to what we've seen from Christianity and Judaism being forced to conform and become moderate in nations where their stories and mythologies are unacceptable as rule of law.

Good post, and actually just another reason to keep religion away from politics at all costs.

I could think about it a bit more and right a wall of text, but I won't.

Daesh seems mostly to be using this to indoctrinate a new generation to their views points atm, while allowing a few to benefit outside of their rules for profit more or less.

I could draw forth some equivalent situations which I won't bother with.