In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.
Yes, I had something like that in mind.
I think that
this is a somewhat controversial (and offending) thing to say:
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.
Fundamentalist interpretations. Extreme ideological interpretation. 7th century interpretation. These terms would suit better, wouldn't they? Islamic people all over the world do not need to hear that IS is very islamic. Islam has good sides as well, hasn't it?
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.
So how would understand this theology help with combatting it?
Later, this part is (somewhat) contradicted by this:
Western officials would probably do best to refrain from weighing in on matters of Islamic theological debate altogether.
Understanding fascism in WWII clearly did not help. It had to be combatted. I am NOT intending to Godwin this discussion. I merely see a parallel.
IS has a "be with us and be like us, or die" ideology that we know all too well from what happened in WWII. Combatting it was the solution, or at least it contributed to it.
Control of territory is an essential precondition for the Islamic State’s authority in the eyes of its supporters. This map, adapted from the work of the Institute for the Study of War, shows the territory under the caliphate’s control as of January 15, along with areas it has attacked. Where it holds power, the state collects taxes, regulates prices, operates courts, and administers services ranging from health care and education to telecommunications.
Water is wet and snow is white.
Exempted from automatic execution, it appears, are Christians who do not resist their new government. Baghdadi permits them to live, as long as they pay a special tax, known as the jizya, and acknowledge their subjugation. The Koranic authority for this practice is not in dispute.
Automatic or not, we've recently witnessed executions, in Libya. That matters. That rouses emotion
against IS. Which should also not be underestimated.
Centuries have passed since the wars of religion ceased in Europe, and since men stopped dying in large numbers because of arcane theological disputes. Hence, perhaps, the incredulity and denial with which Westerners have greeted news of the theology and practices of the Islamic State. Many refuse to believe that this group is as devout as it claims to be, or as backward-looking or apocalyptic as its actions and statements suggest.
I don't see truth in this statement. There is no denial. People understand the danger. By now at least. The problem is that not everybody knows how to deal with it. And that's a difference.
One of the major points of this article seems to me that the writer wants to say: IS is (very) religious, not (just) an ideology.
Even if that is the case, so what? The writer does not address the importance of this knowledge (I might have missed this, please correct me if I have). Later, at the end, he stresses the ideology-aspect again.
Especially interesting to me was "IV. The Fight". It pointed out various possibilities. Not a clear way of knowing what to do with it or about it.
Doing nothing and waiting til it dies, I doubt if that really is going to happen.
"Islamic State fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”
Yes, we know that.
It was an interesting article. E.g. I have learnt more about how several mistakes were made. Things should have been done such as:
If we had identified the Islamic State’s intentions early, and realized that the vacuum in Syria and Iraq would give it ample space to carry them out, we might, at a minimum, have pushed Iraq to harden its border with Syria and preemptively make deals with its Sunnis.
But isn't this a what if scenario? And perhaps not more than a short term solution? Could Iraq really have hardened its borders? Without Western boots on the ground?
In the end we get a summary of the whole problem, which is -in essence- not really that revealing:
Fascism, Orwell continued, is
psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life … Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people “I offer you a good time,” Hitler has said to them, “I offer you struggle, danger, and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet … We ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.
Nor, in the case of the Islamic State, its religious or intellectual appeal. That the Islamic State holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It is ready to cheer its own near-obliteration, and to remain confident, even when surrounded, that it will receive divine succor if it stays true to the Prophetic model. Ideological tools may convince some potential converts that the group’s message is false, and military tools can limit its horrors. But for an organization as impervious to persuasion as the Islamic State, few measures short of these will matter, and the war may be a long one, even if it doesn’t last until the end of time.
Yes, very true. In the end, the writer agrees with me: The war will happen, if it hasn't already, and it is a logical reaction (he doesn't say that, but he speaks about "
the war" as if he means it's against a totalitarian ideology, as if he accepts it as a logical fact.
