- We have misunderstood the nature of the Islamic State in at least two ways. First, we tend to see jihadism as monolithic, and to apply the logic of al‑Qaeda to an organization that has decisively eclipsed it. The Islamic State supporters I spoke with still refer to Osama bin Laden as “Sheikh Osama,” a title of honor. But jihadism has evolved since al-Qaeda’s heyday, from about 1998 to 2003, and many jihadists disdain the group’s priorities and current leadership.
- The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.
Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.
reposted apparently, lil posted it before :) but it seemed to slip under the radar so I'm giving it a second shot.
This article sparked some debate - here are a couple of follow-ups I found interesting:
The Atlantic Ignores Muslim Intellectuals, Defines “True Islam” As ISIS - Murtaza Hussain
What The Atlantic Left Out About ISIS According To Their Own Expert - Jack Jenkins
I got the feeing from those articles that the authors took the tack that the Atlantic said that because these guys are true believers, and that their motives are grounded in historic precedent, that they are the 'real' Muslims. I don't think that was the point of the original piece. I think the point was that so long as they're deriving their beliefs from scripture and history, that they have to be thought of as 'true Muslims' but not necessarily the only true Muslims.
I another note, I heard Ted Cruz on the radio the other day bashing Obama for refusing to refer to ISIS as 'Islamic' fighters. I almost had a car accident when I found myself thinking that he had a point. In what bizarro world are we living that I can think Ted Cruz has a point? I felt shame.
- ... a stay in U.S. captivity at Camp Bucca ...
Now that kids is what is called 'interesting but not very surprising'.