ISIS megathrad

[erimir]

Seeing as the recent attack in Paris was an organized terrorist attack and not really in line with the typical "mass shootings" talked about in that thread, and that we had not a general purpose ISIS thread, I give you this.

And additionally, I would like to discuss this link (and accompanying followup):

What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic

'What ISIS Really Wants': How Readers Are Responding to The Atlantic's Cover Story - The Atlantic

An issue I see is that... they do have a textual basis for many of their actions.

I obviously don't think the Qur'an is perfect and unaltered, and that the Muslim belief in its unaltered nature is rather, well, faith-based. There is evidence that it is not the same now as it was when originally written. Rejecting that belief undermines a lot of the basis of traditional Islam though. And there are, of course, reasons to reject the authority of many hadith, etc. Hell, most Christians are unwilling to admit the wonky things about the writing of the Bible, falling back on it being "divinely-inspired". But they will admit it had many authors.

The origins of Christianity are much more obscure, with the gospels being written decades after Jesus's death. And because of the fact that the Bible was written by many different authors at many different times, and the tone of the Old Testament is radically different from the New Testament, the books in it were decided by committee, etc. I would say it is less coherent as a text than the Qur'an. As such, it seems to me that Islam is much less open to interpretation than Christianity. Although, of course, there is still quite a bit of room for interpretation.

But it's hard to see Mohammed owning slaves and advocating barbaric punishments (such as amputation for theft) and then condemn ISIS in the strongest terms. It is hard to see the theological basis for a devout Muslim to view these things as absolutely wrong.

I would be interested in seeing something of the moderate Muslim theological response to some of these things. How do they justify their interpretation textually, from the Qur'an? The hadith? Other than by rejecting the belief in the textual purity of the Qur'an, and/or the authority of many hadith, how can they reject these things without simply becoming "cafeteria Muslims"?

[Sauron]

There are two things that I usually hear (and what I was told studying Islam and hadith in college):

1. Certain actions were intended for the time of Muhammad (or Muhammad personally), or even the early community of Islam, but are not supposed to be done now in modern times -- this is analogous to "this was for the Old Testament, but is no longer in force due to the New Testament", or "Christ did this because he was the Messiah; it does not mean that everyone is supposed to do this";

2. The text of the Quran cannot be understood by someone who simply picks it up and reads it; instead, it must be interpreted and expounded upon by someone who is in the ulama'; the educated priesthood. This is analogous to the Roman Catholic doctrine that the divine Scriptures require members of the Church hierarchy to interpret and explain to the people at mass. Deviations from true Islam occur when ordinary people try to expound upon it without benefit of clerical exegesis.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by erimir

But it's hard to see Mohammed owning slaves and advocating barbaric punishments (such as amputation for theft) and then condemn ISIS in the strongest terms. It is hard to see the theological basis for a devout Muslim to view these things as absolutely wrong.

As an analogy, it might be useful to imagine that Jesus had owned slaves, or directly advocated amputation as a punishment for theft. I find it hard to believe many Christians would then truly condemn those behaviors unless they questioned the inerrancy of the Bible or something along those lines. You can't just say Jesus was wrong.

Originally Posted by Sauron

There are two things that I usually hear (and what I was told studying Islam and hadith in college):

1. Certain actions were intended for the time of Muhammad (or Muhammad personally), or even the early community of Islam, but are not supposed to be done now in modern times -- this is analogous to "this was for the Old Testament, but is no longer in force due to the New Testament", or "Christ did this because he was the Messiah; it does not mean that everyone is supposed to do this";

Right, well, but I can see how this (and the following) view are not the most persuasive arguments.

Beyond that, things like cutting off thieves' hands don't really work in that at all, since it is a punishment prescribed by Mohammed. It's hard for me to see how a Muslim can argue that it's an unjust punishment. Maybe they can argue it's not necessary, but can Muslims suggest that Mohammed even had suboptimal ideas in some cases? If Mohammed said that's what you should do, isn't that not just acceptable but the best course of action?

2. The text of the Quran cannot be understood by someone who simply picks it up and reads it; instead, it must be interpreted and expounded upon by someone who is in the ulama'; the educated priesthood. This is analogous to the Roman Catholic doctrine that the divine Scriptures require members of the Church hierarchy to interpret and explain to the people at mass. Deviations from true Islam occur when ordinary people try to expound upon it without benefit of clerical exegesis.

Like I said... not the most convincing. And not actually an argument in itself. Presumably a moderate scholar who disagrees with ISIS will actually have an argument aside from "Trust me, I'm in the ulama."

Also sounds like a good way to preserve convenient interpretations that might not have the strongest textual basis. And, at any rate, I doubt ISIS and other promulgators of these extreme views would disagree that the Qur'an requires study to interpret. If an educated Qur'anic scholar agrees with ISIS or is a member of ISIS, what then? It's not an argument between two shmoes, it's an argument between two scholars. The moderate one still must come up with an argument. So that's the kind of thing I'm interested in.

[The Man]

Just your obligatory reminder that we should be calling them Daesh because they hate that name.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by The Man's link

Some analysts have suggested that the dislike of the term comes from its similarity to another Arabic word, دعس, or Das. That word means to trample down or crush.

I was wondering why they would mind, it is just the Arabic acronym for the exact same name.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by The Man

Just your obligatory reminder that we should be calling them Daesh because they hate that name.

Well, I considered that, but then thought that like it or not, ISIS would be the more recognizable title.

Could be "Daesh (aka ISIS) megathrad" I suppose.

[Watser?]

Belgian press says one of the terrorists is Belgian, went to Syria. Seven arrests in Belgium so far.

Two other dead are Belgian, but victims.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by erimir

Also sounds like a good way to preserve convenient interpretations that might not have the strongest textual basis. And, at any rate, I doubt ISIS and other promulgators of these extreme views would disagree that the Qur'an requires study to interpret.

So there is a principle of Islam that says the Consensus of Believers (ijmaa') can never be wrong.
Ijma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's defined differently by different groups. But in essence, Allah guides the community of the faithful, and the community will never be misled because Allah is all-powerful. But this consensus is not to be interpreted as a simple opinion poll of the group of Muslims alive today; instead, it's (generally) to be interpreted as the entire embodiment of all Muslims from the start of Islam until the end of the age. So if you have a qualified believer (mujtahid), then with study they can ascertain the true nature of this Consensus of Believers. From this comes the doctrine that whatever the majority of scholars, Islamic judges and teachers ('ulama, hukama', and asaatitha) agree upon, as perceived throughout history, is what Allah intended.

Naturally this is highly circular. And also naturally, it's primarily a Sunni doctrine. After all since the Shi'a are outnumbered and in the minority, accepting this doctrine would also mean having to admit they were in grave doctrinal error about the succession of the Prophet and the nature of clerical authority in Islam. So the Shi'a viewpoint on ijmaa' is somewhat different.

If an educated Qur'anic scholar agrees with ISIS or is a member of ISIS, what then? It's not an argument between two shmoes, it's an argument between two scholars. The moderate one still must come up with an argument. So that's the kind of thing I'm interested in.

So there's an interesting article here about how a moderate cleric is bringing the theology argument back to the radicals:

One cleric’s war on radicals is the hope for moderate Islam | The National

[Vivisectus]

It is hard to see the theological basis for a devout Muslim to view these things as absolutely wrong.

But that does not matter nearly as much as you would think. Religious people tend to make up their minds about what is right and wrong first and then go and find the appropriate lines in their holy texts to support that idea.

The Christianities that we see practices are not something you arrive at if you read the bible as if it is recipe book: they are interpretative traditions. And since most religious texts are pretty vague and open to interpretation, you can quite a lot with them.

Christianity as a sort of end-of-times movement that tells us to stop procreating and all become wandering anarcho-communist ascetics is perfectly textual. Christianity as a deeply patriarchal, polygamous society where constitutional rights do not fully apply to women is perfectly textual. Burning Wiccans and the persecution of sea-food restaurant proprietors can be easily justified too.

Being the writings of the beneficiaries of what seems to have been a successful radical socio-religious revolution, the Quran tends to mention actual conquest and power in connection with Mohammad. As such it makes it ever so slightly easier on the nutjobs to find catchy lines if they choose to go looking.

But that is about it, and the difference seems so slight that I wonder why people keep bringing it up.

[ImGod]

It's typical power and control. The leaders of ISIS need religion to get people to do stuff like die for them. It's hard to talk someone into strapping on a bomb and blowing themselves up at a soccer stadium if there is nothing waiting for them afterwards. They need their people to believe there is more than just this world to get them to do what they do in this one.

It's been the same for millennia and hundreds of religions.

[Watser?]

There was a book a couple of years ago that pretty much claimed that it has everything to do with occupation and very little with Islam:

Researcher: Suicide terrorism linked to military occupation - Laura Rozen - POLITICO.com

Also, here's a cartoon:

[Angakuk]

I came here expecting to find some serious inside information about Archer. Imagine my disappointment.

[erimir]

I'm going to be Gretchen Wieners and keep trying to make this thread happen, despite people posting in the mass shooting thread still...

Originally Posted by Janet

I've been thinking over the weekend about Saudi Arabia and Qatar and UAE funding the terrorists and, to be honest, I'm not entirely ready to condemn them for paying protection money. I know it's wrong, but I also know it's a damn hard thing to resist when you are trying to protect your own. It's not like anyone else is above exporting terror to keep it away from their homes.

As Watser and Viv were saying, I wouldn't really see it that way.

It makes as much sense to excuse them as it does to excuse billionaire/millionaire conservatives in America for demonizing poor black people on welfare, imo. It distracts people and directs their animus elsewhere, and so it does provide "protection" of sort. People like the House of Saud only need that protection because they're such huge assholes.

[S.Vashti]

I too was entertaining the possibility that SA, UAE, and Q were gently supporting the idea of ISIS, though mostly to remove the dissatisfied people in their midsts that could be troublemakers, to a place further away. My guess would be immediately shown to be wrong if I knew that these countries were not allowing emigration to ISIS, though.

[JoeP]

If I was in charge of an oppressive theocracy (I'm not and no one can prove I am) I would provide lots of evidence of blocking emigration to ISIS-controlled areas - and of blocking funding and weapons sales to related groups. But behind the scenes I would deport dissatisfied troublemakers to nearby areas and help them out with "aid".

[SR71]

Theocratic oppressor

[JoeP]

[Watser?]

Anyway, this is an European problem that won't go away by closing borders:

EU official: all identified Paris attackers were from the EU / Boing Boing

And a German minster says the fake Syrian passport they found was probably planted to spread fear for refugees.

[SR71]

Anonymous Takes Down 5,500 ISIS Accounts, 24 Hours After ISIS Called Them Idiots� | Alternet

Look at that, the hacktivists are wrecking ISIS IT like Bruce Lee karate chopping bad guys in a Bruce Lee movie. What have you done to defeat ISIS today, slacktivists?

[Stormlight]

WE DID IT, REDDIT!!1!

[Stormlight]

Oh also:

Just a moment...

Indeed, we did it, Reddit!

[SR71]

Are you telling me even ANONYMOUS can't save me from ISIS? Is that what you're telling me, Stromlight? oh dear...

[Stormlight]

You're doomed, SR71. Doomed. Not even the internet can save you now.

[Ymir's blood]

http://m.

That Time is Now (Superfriends): Michael Kohler -...

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by SR71

Are you telling me even ANONYMOUS can't save me from ISIS? Is that what you're telling me, Stromlight? oh dear...

Originally Posted by Stormlight

You're doomed, SR71. Doomed. Not even the internet can save you now.

Anonymous announce a campaign of linking to Freethought Forum | Huff Post