[Donna]

Thats not the point. The point is these ISIS hicks are constantly hailed by the usual suspects as adhering to the true doctrinal message of Islam. So if thats the case, why aren't muslims with the best knowledge of Islamic doctrine the ones who are flocking to ISIS - instead of the ignorant hicks?

The problem with Islam, in my opinion, is that there is no "true" Islam. The Islam of ISIS is every bit as valid as the Islam of the whirling dervish or the syncretist Ahmadiyya.

Based on everything I have read over the preceding two years, ISIS takes the religious dimension of their political project very seriously. There does appear to exist a class of religious jurists who direct the Islamic State's educational and legal systems. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi himself has a doctorate in Islamic studies. Even the declaration of the Islamic State as a Caliphate was a serious theological matter that nearly resulted in a violent split within the organization.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Based on everything I have read over the preceding two years, ISIS takes the religious dimension of their political project very seriously. There does appear to exist a class of religious jurists who direct the Islamic State's educational and legal systems. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi himself has a doctorate in Islamic studies. Even the declaration of the Islamic State as a Caliphate was a serious theological matter that nearly resulted in a violent split within the organization.

Something tells me you are attempting to make a point, but I'm just not seeing it.

[Donna]

Something tells me you are attempting to make a point, but I'm just not seeing it.

Move along then.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Right - well from what I can tell you are making the "point" that fanatics are serious about their beliefs.

And in other earth shattering news, the sky is blue.

If I was to point out that the Westbro Baptist church "take their religious dimension" seriously when, for example, they call for gays to be executed - does that somehow undermine more mainstream christians who say (from a doctrinal point of view) thats a load of nonsense?

[Frollein]

So because the cannon fodder doesn't have a theology degree, that means ISIS isn't really an Islamist terror organisation.


Their leaders know damn well that they want to spread the "true Islam". They also have a good idea of what that Islam looks like. Wherever they manage to gain a foothold, they begin to "teach" the occupied population to live by the rules of Islam, which somehow involves a lot of dying if you don't pay attention.

Sure, they exploit the sexual frustration and violent tendencies of young men by giving them a "worthwile cause." And these footsoldiers may not know more about the intricacies of Islam (lol) than the average churchgoer knows about obscure Catholic doctrine when they join, but I bet IS have their own version of Sunday school at the camps - because if not, it would be the first time in history that a terrorist organisation would refrain from indoctrinating their followers.

By the time that the "not really a Muslim" reaches Germany and begins to attack random people on a train with an axe, shouting Allahu akbar, or explodes himself with a nail bomb at a music festival, they know all about "sharia and stuff" to qualify as RealMuslims(TM).

[Thompson_NCL]

This is comparable to paedophiles rejecting sexual abuse of children. It's good that they deny their basic instincts, but it's really only a matter of time.

[Political Interest]

They most definitely are Islamic movements. The fact is that they address imperatives that exist within Islam, namely the need to unify all the Muslims under one state, the rejection of secularism and nationalism and the supremacy of Shari'Ah law.

However, they differ in their methods. Some want to achieve this vision through peaceful means and perhaps even through elections. Others indulge in terrorism.

Another point is that this idea was formed as an ideology. Islam could have existed without its political dimension but the intellectuals of Islamism developed it into a 20th century political movement. Most of the ideological fathers of Islamism were not even Islamic scholars. If I recall correctly both Sayyid Qutb and Maududi were journalists. The ideology fused itself into Islam and so today they have become very difficult to separate or distinguish.

Ultimately I believe these Islamic movements are nationalistic. They seek the removal of foreign influences from the Middle East, are deeply conservative and populist. When you see speaches from Iran it sounds almost like something you would have heard from Hitler or Mussolini. This is the nationalism of religion as opposed to blood and soil, but deep down it is still about the independence, power and prestige of this particular part of the world.

ISIS violate Shari'Ah law through unsanctioned killing of innocent civilians and terrorism. However their legal system is not very different to that of Saudi Arabia.

[Pants-of-dog]

So because the cannon fodder doesn't have a theology degree, that means ISIS isn't really an Islamist terror organisation.


Their leaders know damn well that they want to spread the "true Islam". They also have a good idea of what that Islam looks like. Wherever they manage to gain a foothold, they begin to "teach" the occupied population to live by the rules of Islam, which somehow involves a lot of dying if you don't pay attention.

Sure, they exploit the sexual frustration and violent tendencies of young men by giving them a "worthwile cause." And these footsoldiers may not know more about the intricacies of Islam (lol) than the average churchgoer knows about obscure Catholic doctrine when they join, but I bet IS have their own version of Sunday school at the camps - because if not, it would be the first time in history that a terrorist organisation would refrain from indoctrinating their followers.

By the time that the "not really a Muslim" reaches Germany and begins to attack random people on a train with an axe, shouting Allahu akbar, or explodes himself with a nail bomb at a music festival, they know all about "sharia and stuff" to qualify as RealMuslims(TM).

This is a great post and I agree with almost all of it.

The fact that the footsoldiers are simply not that bright and do not really understand the guiding ideology does not magically make it not guided by said ideology. Like NATO soldiers who do not think very much about capitalism, these guys do not think much about the particular flavour of Islam with which they have recently been indoctrinated. The leaders probably prefer it that way.

And like you said, the leaders have a very clear idea about the society they want to build, and it definitely involves killing any opposition. So, we know this particular flavour of Islam is much like the European far right in that it is intensely hierarchical, intensely strict about social norms, and uses state violence to enforce these hierarchies and norms. This is consistent with PI's analysis.

And these footsoldiers are indoctrinated, as you say. I completely agree that it would be really weird if these terrorist groups were not doing so. And this process of indoctrination is essential if you want the teenage Muslim farmboy to ignore the Islam they grew up with and accept this different, violent, macho Islam.

And this foot-soldier (who is almost certainly not going to make it to Europe) will know enough about Sharia to have earned the right to say Allahu Akbar right before failing to kill someone with a kitchen knife. And this is a type of Islam.

Now, the fact that this violent form of Islam has to be indoctrinated in these kids shows that this is just one type of Islam.

As I have claimed earlier, there are a variety of ideological beliefs that fall under the name of Islam. It is not a homogeneous ideology.

[Frollein]

Now, the fact that this violent form of Islam has to be indoctrinated in these kids shows that this is just one type of Islam.

No, it just shows that the violent and misogynist ideology of Islam is ideally suited to exploit violent and misogynist tendencies in predisposed individuals, the majority of which have been, surprise, Muslims. That they don't have studied theology doesn't take away from the fact that they have already internalized Islam's stance against women, homosexuals and infidels. Why else would they travel from Europe to the ME, if not for a chance to finally rape the women and kill the homos and kuffars?

[KlassWar]

The problem with Islam, in my opinion, is that there is no "true" Islam. The Islam of ISIS is every bit as valid as the Islam of the whirling dervish or the syncretist Ahmadiyya.

Couldn't you say that of any religion, though? Islam is hardly unique in being split into scores of competing sects. It's not even unique in having batshit crazy right wing sects or spawning clerical-reactionary and clerical-fascist movements.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Frollein,

If that were the case, then no indoctrination would be needed.

[Frollein]

It seems you don't have a clear concept of indoctrination. Just because someone thinks that the banksters are shit and that the workers should revolt doesn't make him a communist able to hit you with a wall of text, TIG style, or to tell a Stalinist from a Trotzkyist. But you can still use him to blow up a bank in the name of the revolution. He doesn't need to have written a dissertation on Marx to identify with the cause, and for all intents and purposes, he's a communist.

I hope I didn't tax you too much by using an analogy. I know you're prone to literalism when it suits you.

[Pants-of-dog]

I do not disagree with the fact that ignorance of the ideology does not make them not Muslim.

My point was that the indoctrination process is about getting rid of the old Muslim belief and replacing it with the new Muslim belief.

[Frollein]

There is only one Muslim belief, and that is laid down in the Quran, which cannot be altered, because it is the word of Allah.

The only thing the "indoctrination" does is to make them read the whole damn book - or read it to them, perhaps.

[Rich]

Of course the Islamic State doesn't practice true Islam. There's no such thing. True Islam is an oxy-moron. This is just another of the Left's and Muslims lovers endless diversionary tactics.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is only one Muslim belief, and that is laid down in the Quran, which cannot be altered, because it is the word of Allah.

The only thing the "indoctrination" does is to make them read the whole damn book - or read it to them, perhaps.

Sure. This is why I was almost terroristed by the Muslim woman who walked by me the other day. Because she believes the exact same thing as the most depraved terrorist.

Right.

[Frollein]

If she was wearing a head scarf, she was communicating her thoughts loud and clear: that she is a virtuous woman, while women who don't hide their hair (or worse, wear short sleeves and miniskirts) are sluts - infidel sluts. Right there your have some of your "racism" (sectarianism, to be precise) that gauges the worth of a human being by their religious denomination and the social mores that come with it.

Now, if she buys into the "virtuous woman" shit, do you really think she'll be on board with your left-liberal views about homosexuality, Jews and the Big Satan?

[skinster]

Frollein is a victim of head-scarves.


30,000 Muslims from around the world gathered in the United Kingdom to voice their opposition to the Islamic State and other radical groups.

[Godstud]

Some Christians wear a St Christopher medal or a cross. I suppose they must think themselves superior to everyone else, too. Right? Those arrogant self-righteous fucks! They think they are better than me! I'll have to remember that, when I see one, again, and give them a word or two!

[Frollein]

You really should inform yourselves before you jump on the "I'm so progressive" bandwagon. Ten years ago, almost no Turkish woman wore a head scarf, only the older ones. Now even children wear it. That's the ten years in which Islam remembered its political dimension - what outsiders called "radicalisation." It's not a fashion statement, just like a Swastika isn't.

Contrary to Christianity nowadays, Islam is an expansionist ideology with clearly stated political goals, so while people wearing a cross aren't making a political statement, people wearing a headscarf are (or their husbands owners are making it for them). There is a reason why the percentage of Christians in Turkey, for example, fell from 20% to 0.2% in the last 100 years. This ideology isn't tolerant towards other faiths, gays, or women. I really don't see any reason why I should tolerate something that is so clearly opposed to the values of a liberal, secular society, and frankly, I'm stunned by your pride in enabling your enemy.