Not odd at all. Wahabi islam holds that the worship of tombs and graven images is haram. ISIS would be committing haram by allowing the idolatry of infidels who did not acknowledge the Prophet (pbuh) to perpetuate. For the niqab crowd this is a major tour de force as it shows that ISIS is not merely fixated on the near enemy, they are also focused on the cosmic enemy. Oh, you meant among western audiences? Yeah, they don't give the first fuck about Western audiences. Anyone who beheads human rights workers has stated their disdain for Western audiences beyond a reasonable doubt. Dore Gold probably blows 3 chapters on Islam and the destruction of idols in The Fight for Jerusalem.
...yeah pretty sure "muslims on the fence" are also haram. I am not an expert on Islam. I have endeavored to learn all I can so that I can wrap my head around (and discuss simply) the various nuances of assorted sects of Islam but it ain't my language, it ain't my groove. I know Ahmadinejad wanted a dam that would flood Persepolis and the Ayatollahs held him in check. Granted, Iranians are Shia and therefore takfir so they don't really count. I know that Even the Taliban weren't completely sold on nuking the Bamyan Buddhas. They did it in the end, but it wasn't a "fuck yeah, idol smashing" moment; it took like 4 years of infighting before it actually happened. I know Turkey was willing to roll tanks to save the remains of Suleyman Shah. That's idol worship if ever there was any. So I don't know that there aren't any "muslims on the fence" about nuking ancient archeological sites but if I were to make an educated guess, I'd say that ISIS wouldn't give the first fuck about them either, for all the reasons they don't give the first fuck about the West.
This was more or less the thought process that led me to write 'odd'. I started with stronger language -- 'surprising' or something -- and decided that, most likely, ISIS doesn't have the longterm acumen to hold off on actions that will make people who don't hate them now hate them later. If there are any of those people. It's probably a smaller subset than I'm assuming. It would take a hell of a lot to make most of ISIS' supporters angry at them.So I don't know that there aren't any "muslims on the fence" about nuking ancient archeological sites but if I were to make an educated guess, I'd say that ISIS wouldn't give the first fuck about them either, for all the reasons they don't give the first fuck about the West.
ISIS used to be al Qaeda in Iraq until they decided al Qaeda were pussies. Then they made the cardinal mistake of stateless entities: they grabbed turf. So now you have a terrorist organization claiming to be a state when in fact you have an ideological entity that has chosen to be responsible for geography. Terrorists that wave flags around and sit on top of hills are short-lived. This is the legacy of ISIS. If they weren't straddling the twin clusterfucks of civil-war Syria and post-occupation Iraq they never would have made a play. As it is, it's like declaring yourself the warlord of Somalia - sure, until someone bigger comes along. ISIS doesn't have the longterm acumen to hold off on actions that will make people who don't hate them now hate them later.