UKC

In all the discussion about the nature of Islamic State (prepend "so called" to taste), and as a means to understanding them, there is a lot to be said for listening to how they describe themselves and their motivations.

Islamic State produce a glossy magazine "Dabiq", of which the 15th edition has just been produced. In the interests of understanding them, one can read it here (it's quite a big download): http://www.4shared.com/web/preview/pdf/aDgNqZJkce

This is how it starts:

"After the attacks in Orlando (USA), Dhaka (Bangladesh), Magnanville, Nice, and Normandy (France), and Würzburg and Ansbach (Germany) led to the martyrdom of twelve soldiers of the Caliphate and the deaths and injuries of more than six hundred Crusaders, one would expect the cross-worshippers and democratic pagans of the West to pause and contemplate the reasons behind the animosity and enmity held by Muslims for Westerners and even take heed and consider repentance by abandoning their infidelity and accepting Islam. But the fever and delusion caused by sin, superstition, and secularism have numbed what is left of their minds and senses. Their hedonic addictions and heathenish doctrines have enslaved them to false gods including their clergy, their legislatures, and their lusts.

"As for worshipping the Creator alone and following His Final Messenger, then that is beyond their consideration. Instead, they wage war against what entails both their welfare in the worldly life and their salvation in the Hereafter. They wage war against their Creator, His word, His law, His Messenger, and His slaves. And they shamelessly confess their disbelief in His wisdom, mercy, and justice, by thinking that the Lord would abandon His religion and His slaves to the tyranny of His enemies and their evilness.

"And despite their wretched condition of ignorance and arrogance, we take this occasion of multiple massacres inflicted upon their citizens and interests to call them once again to the religion of pure monotheism, truth, mercy, justice, and the sword. Between the release of this issue of Dabiq and the next slaughter to be executed against them by the hidden soldiers of the Caliphate - who are ordered to attack without delay - the Crusaders can read into why Muslims hate and fight them, why pagan Christians should break their crosses, why liberalist secularists should return to the fitrah (natural human disposition), and why skeptical atheists should recognize their Creator and submit to Him. In essence, we explain why they must abandon their infidelity and accept Islam, the religion of sincerity and submission to the Lord of the heavens and the earth."

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The message went awry after exactly 21 words.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The grammar is unimpeachable, but will someone PLEASE take that man to an editor! Heh heh heh, seriously though: what a bunch of dicks.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Did you find any of this surprising? Sounds like fairly standard religious stuff, with a stronger-than-average focus on martyrdom.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Apart from the martyrdom bit, this reads almost exactly like the ramblings of fundamentalist Christians I occasionally stumble across on the internet.

Have you posted this because it is shocking ? Or to confirm your own view of them ?

In reply to lummox:


I am guessing its a roundabout attack on some peoples claims (not necessarily on these forums) that ISIS arent actually driven by religion.

In reply to lummox:


It is to counter the claims, such as recently by Pope Francis, that Islamic State are not about Islam or religion. If one reads that Dabiq magazine the overall impression is how theological it all is.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well I'm convinced, just converted now.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

No no no. It's all about legitimate political grievances, and this is just a smoke-screen. They don't really believe that.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Trying to make yourselves sound virtuous and religious is one thing but then of course they are happy to take Yazidi sex slaves and in the case of the Nice trucker drink and screw around according to his neighbours.

In reply to humptydumpty:

I'm no Defender of the Faith, but I have to say that's rather unfair. With the exception of a few tiny and uninfluential fruitloop groups, you don't get this sort of thing from Christians or Jews. And even those that preach it aren't practicing it. Fair play, and all that.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:


Entirely ok within Islam, according to an Imam in Cardiff!

"Hammuda tells them: "One of the interpretations as to what this means is that towards the end of time there will be many wars like what we are seeing today. And because of these wars women will be taken as captives, as slaves, yeah, women will be taken as slaves.

"And then her master has relations with her because this is permissible in Islam: it's permissible to have relations with a woman who is your slave or your wife."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/cardiff-imam-tells-teens-its-permissible-islam-hav...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well that's a cracking read, I'd martyr myself rather than have to read the next enthralling issue.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


At any moment in history there have been fruitcakes using religion to justify murder, theft, rape and everything else that society considers illegal.

Just because IS uses a word processor and the internet doesn’t make them “theological” or stop them being murderous animals.

In reply to m0unt41n:

I think you may be missing Coel's point. Without some sort of raison d'etre - i.e. their particular breed of sky fairy - there would be no semi-coherent 'Islamic State'. They would be perceived for what exactly they are, a bunch of hormonally challenged inadequates who can only get their rocks off by perpetrating ultra-violence. As it is, the veneer of religion means that if they are not exactly supported, there are many millions of people out there - and states - who think 'well obviously they go too far but ...an Islamic State? Keeping our daughters safe, our wives obedient, and us on the straight and narrow to Paradise? That's not such a bad idea...'

Also, FWIW, I cannot for the life of me see how anyone who purports to believe in a sky fairy of their own can actually criticise or refute any of IS's objectives. If you genuinely believe your god is real and holds the key to life everlasting, surely it really is your sacred duty to convert the rest of us.

In reply to lummox:


Ok, let's see one of these exactly alike "fundamentalist Christians" rantings that you know so much about.

Quote one.

In reply to Big Ger:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Oh come on, a serious one.

Those fruitcakes have less than 40 members.

In reply to Big Ger:

Try Christian TV channels in say Wyoming.

In reply to MG:

Quote one.

In reply to Big Ger:

?? It's TV! Seriously, listen to one if you ever get the chance. It's quite an eye opener

In reply to Big Ger:

I think.this was the gist.of ones.output
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

In reply to m0unt41n:


Can people only be theological if they're being all nice and fluffy then?

A rational person can't pick and choose what belief(s) held by others they call religion based on their own views of the world. That sort of thing tends to be reserved for true believers...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Sam Harris just tweeted about this. A sober redress to those who repeat the mantra "religion of peace". No one can lay claim to having the one true interpretation of religious text - that is the problem with religion, unlike science the methodology cannot be repeated. Unlike maths, you can't show your working out.

In reply to Big Ger:



I could send you hundreds upon hundreds of "pro-life" blogs largely from the USA whose semantic and logical content is on a par with Coel's OP, and whose contempt for others is little better.

A particularly appalling recent medical case illustrates how this leads to barbarous treatment of people in a secular democracy. This was in Texas where a woman spent 3 days at home with a partially delivered, non viable foetus hanging out and thrashing about whilst dying - the doctors were forbidden by law from terminating it because it had passed a religiously motivated definition of viability enacted as law.

Edit: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/31/texas-forced-this-woman-to...

In reply to Big Ger:



Just read anything by any of the following lovely people, Fill yer boots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Lightning https://www.holyspiritspeaks.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Patriot_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(USA)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Priesthood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Covenant,_The_Sword,_and_the_Arm_of_the_L...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I feel that the UN has let the world down big time by not organising the sorting out of this lot, what will it take?

In reply to jonnie3430:

I feel that the UN has let the world down big time by not organising the sorting out of this lot, what will it take?

Tea, biscuits and a jolly good chat?

In reply to jonnie3430:

Quite a few members of the UN don't think 'this lot' are so far beyond the pale as you might wish.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Hence its failure.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

None of them are calling for a "global Jihad," are they?

We may not like their views, I find all religion repugnant by the way, but none of them are celebrating death of 'unbelievers" are they?


And again, these are fringe nutters, not a whole army of "believers" willing and able to invade countries.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Granted without reservation: these are Christian, arguably doctrinally sound, and entirely reprehensible. They are fundamentalist and extremist. But to put them on a level footing with Islamic extremists is a false comparison.

Where are the Quaker suicide bombers, the Jewish militants with assault rifles murdering cartoonists, the Methodists planting bombs on buses, the Catholics mass murdering Jews in kosher supermarkets, the Protestants driving trucks through crowds, the Mormons beheading British soldiers on the streets of London, the Seventh Day Adventists driving car bombs into British airports, the Anglicans running amok on trains with axes, or the snake-handling backwoods holy rollers speaking in tongues and storming into mosques to film themselves cheerfully slitting the throats of 80 year old imams? It isn't happening.

To compare Christian or Jewish extremism (unpleasant though they are) to Islamic extremism is at best unfair and at the very least wildly inaccurate.

In reply to Tony Naylor:


Yes, but doing it detracts from the message of the OP, which is why the call of; "they may be bad but <s>white people</s> Christians also say bad things"was made in the first place.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The Hans Christian Andersons of old who wrote the biblical fiction have a lot to answer for; consolidating in the media the superstitions built over millennia and resulting in the present day sky fairy power struggle.
Prehistoric superstitions fuelled by the fear of death and resultant infinite void is the most globally powerful driver in the control of population, regardless of borders, politics and even plain science and reason.

In reply to Big Ger:


At what point in my brief response to the thread did I claim to know a great deal about the fundamentalist Christians I had stumbled upon on the internet ?

Good to see the dislikers don't read too well either : )

In reply to lummox:

Ok, care to stumble across one again for us?

What sites were you visiting to "accidentally" come across these rantings?

In reply to Big Ger:

So you just made up what I hadn't actually written ? Again.

No time to play now. As people have pointed out above, Google is your tax avoiding friend in such matters. Have fun.

In reply to lummox:

Ok, seeing as you're dodging and weaving like a one legged man in a ball bearing factory, I'll quote you directly.

>" the ramblings of fundamentalist Christians I occasionally stumble across on the internet."

Please could you link to one of these sites you've "stumbled" across?

That would help us make a comparison with the OP.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Would you expect an organisation's propaganda to explicitly explain its motivations and goals or to to be carefully crafted so as to appeal powerfully to the hopes and fears of those it needs to do it's bidding?

Surely IS is different things to different people, all of whom for one reason or another choose to wrap themselves in its banner. Some will be driven by power, some religious fervour, some seeking meaning and purpous, some an excuse to vent their anger.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


Yes, actually, I would. Most such ideologies really are up-front with their motivations and goals.


Both.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Perhaps being an ex Catholic (I decided that nobody in church really knew etc) until my mid teens gives me a different point of view to some, I'm not sure, but I always take people saying ISIS not being about religion, to mean the religion which most people practice which isn't about blowing people up - which is what the Muslim protesters in London recently were saying. With the majority of Muslims being more concerned with going to work and going to the mosque, and wanting to get on and have a peaceful life (putting aside what one thinks of different strands of Islam for the moment), to them blowing people up is the last thing they'd connect with being a Muslim. So from their perspective, they're speaking truthfully when they say ISIS don't have anything to do with their religion - which is the religion as they live it.

I've only had 4 hours sleep, but I sort of struggle to see how taking the theological justification which ISIS use, to say 'they're Muslims too', is going to help much in combating the negative fall out of terrorism, to do with hostility from certain non Muslims towards Muslims, and Muslims 'hunkering down' as a result, and that lessening any chances of social integration. For the Muslims dismayed by ISIS, they're speaking-their-truth as it were when they say that they're not Muslims.

A religion isn't just about what's written down, it's about how one lives too.

(I doubt I'll be replying because I've stuff to do and I'm off to make breakfast etc.)

In reply to Timmd:


Sure, most versions of Islam are more moderate than IS, and most Muslims are vastly more moderate. But, IS really is an extreme version of mainstream Islam, and many of the totalitarian strands present in IS ideology are also present (in less extreme forms) in mainstream Islam. (Prohibitions on apostasy and blasphemy in mainstream Islam are examples of that.)

The "nothing to do with Islam" mantra fails to recognise the reality of the situation and is thus unhelpful. The truth is that *mainstream* Islam needs to be reformed to make it liberal, pluralistic and benign.

Saying that is not trying to demonise Muslims (who, on the whole, are far better than their religion), but it is trying to fairly critique an ideology, and to overturn the ridiculous notion that, because it's a religion, it can't be harmful or to blame. We're comfortable with the fact that various communist, fascist, Nazi and other ideologies can be harmful when they dominate in a nation, so why can't we assess Islam on the same basis?

In reply to Tony Naylor:

I grew up in a world where Catholics and Protestants were bombing each other, and anyone else who got in the way.

I'd say that wasn't actually a very Christian thing to do, just as I'd say Daesh or so called ISIS aren't the same as the majority of peaceful kind Muslims.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I agree that that saying religion can't be blamed or criticised is wrong. But I don't see what is wrong with the "not in my name" approach that moderate Muslims are taking.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I really do have stuff to do, but I think that the ''Nothing to do with Islam' isn't a mantra, as you put it, but more of a heartfelt truth spoken by people who are dismayed by it.

Which makes me think that there possibly needs to be a certain process, which is in the short term, the non Muslim world essentially needs to agree about them not having anything to do with Islam, to help facilitate cooperating in stopping them being a threat, with the process of reforming mainstream Islam being something which has to come from within, and which is something I think may take rather a long time. I agree about the need for change.

It's about being slightly pragmatic, you might say. If we want people to come together and communicate, then saying unspeakable acts have something to do with their religion (when that isn't their reality as they live it in being Muslims), doesn't strike me a way (or the best way) to encourage dialogue and cooperation.

I think it has to be Muslims themselves who change mainstream Islam towards something more secular and tolerant, and thankfully these people exist, with things like the Secular Muslim Society existing (or it might be the Secular Islam Society?).

I really do have stuff to do. I'm off.

In reply to Timmd:


But don't you see that this is contradictory? If the extremism is "nothing to do with Islam" then there is no need for mainstream Islam to reform in any way. If Islam is benign, peaceful and tolerant, then why reform it?


Agreed. And the Muslim reformers who are trying that, such as Maajid Nawaz, are asking people to accept that yes, this *is* something to do with Islam, and that the extreme nature of Islamic State has its seeds in the totalitarian nature of **mainstream** Islam.

In reply to marsbar:


I grew up in that world, too. And I'd agree that their behaviour was an un-Christian, providing you hold to the New Testament and put aside the vileness of the OT. But, again, it's a false comparison: at no point did Irish sectarians declare a global jihad, their quarrel was with each other and with the British governments dealings in Ireland. Nor did they repeatedly announce that they were killing people in Jesus' name. Their stated motivations and aims were far more political than they were religious. They did not declare 'convert or die' or act to avenge their prophet.

In reply to marsbar:


"This is an extreme version of Islam which we reject" is fine.
"This is nothing to do with Islam" is not fine.

One recognises the problem; the other refuses to recognise the problem.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

How about "this is an incorrect version"

In reply to marsbar:


The problem with that is that it plays Islamic State's game, with different versions of Islam declaring each other incorrect and heretical. And who gets to decide which versions are "correct" or not?

In reply to marsbar:

But that's the point- what is 'The Correct Version' of islam?

Is it sunni? Or shia?

Or both?

If both, that means there is more than one correct version. So how many versions are correct ones? And who gets to decide which ones they are?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Tough. People can use their own words.


Only in a black and white world where random people on the street use of words is free of nuance, ambiguity or confusion.

In reply to Tony Naylor:
Except in my home town - warrington - when two children were killed in a shopping centre on a saturday afternoon in a bombing. So their actions spread outside the tiny circle you portray. it was the same with the Birmingham pub bombings.

In reply to elsewhere:


Sure, and I can criticise them for it!

And, more to the point, so can liberal Muslims such as Maajid Nawaz:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/admit-it-these-terrorists-...

In reply to neilh:

I'm aware of the bombings, and I didn't portray a tiny circle - IRA terrorism was enacted throughout the UK, which is not a tiny area. But Islamic terrorism is enacted globally and has a much higher death count. Think Twin Towers and compare that to Warrington. Or compare the truck deaths in Paris to Birmingham. And, of course, the motivations are different.

I stand by my contention that Irish terrorism is not comparable to Islamic terrorism, for the reasons I stated. And I don't think you've refuted that argument.

In reply to Tony Naylor:

Either you missed the point of (mine, yours, and BG's) post, or you have now decided to move the goalposts. We were talking about which other religious groups display a type of extremist and fanatic demagogy like the one from the OP.

Now you want me to name another religion group which is identical in beliefs and actions to those from ISIS other than ISIS?

I'll name you one if you name me a football team that is based in London, has their home grounds in Fulham, plays in the premier league, wears blue shirt and pants with white socks, and is not Chelsea...

Regardless, hundreds of examples of people commiting the atrocities you mention above in the name of their brand or views of Christianity or Judaism exist if you really fancy delving into that.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I wouldn't click on that link, I don't want my name in a some government database

In reply to Tony Naylor:


Well what with Quakers being theologically informed pacifists, that ones unlikely, but more seriously you are missing their point. How many "Muslims" have been killed by (predominantly) the US military, secondly perhaps the Israeli Defence Forces, and somewhere behind that the British Army, French military etc over the last 15 years? IS, like AQ before them, use the word "crusader" pointedly; the probably tens of thousands of "Muslims" civilians killed directly by US, UK and other western forces were killed - for IS - by "Christians"; the US military is "onwards Christians soldiers/marching as to war". Western forces shooting, bombing or droning in Muslim countries are to them what 'terrorists' driving trucks into crowds in France are to us. We don't need to go picking on fringe militia groups in Idaho - they've not bothered the good people of Basra one bit, despite the Trumpesque rantings about "Islamic terror" in the mid west. For IS the Christian terrorists are the US Marine Corp, L’Armée de l'air, the RAF etc. etc.

What is interesting about Coel's quote is that it reads to me as if it was written by a westerner, of which there are plenty in IS. The bit on "democratic pagans" and "skeptical atheists" sounds to me like someone who is quite aware of the levels of secularisation in the West who does NOT think all Westerners are Christian. I used to read a lot of early al Qaeda writing, or that of people associated with them (al Suri), and even predating al Qaeda (like Azzam), and they seemed to generally think West=Christian. Whoever wrote this maybe read Dawkins before he picked up Qutb!

(edited for a missing "not"!)

In reply to TobyA:

That struck me too. This was not written by someone who grew up on the West Bank or in Afghanistan.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Well, I could be mistaken of course, but I don't *think* I missed the point. And I hope you will regard as sincere my assertion that I did not try to move any goalposts.

I accept now, and accepted at the time of your posting, that you "were talking about which other religious groups display a type of extremist and fanatic demagogy like the one from the OP." I actually said, "Granted without reservation". I may not have made it explicit but, FWIW, I agree that your point was well made and well supported by evidence.

I did not dispute this point. What I did do was to expand upon it, and to point out where current Islamic extremism diverges massively from current Christian extremism. I acknowledged the broad parity between the two of ugly rhetoric and scriptural authority, and stated that the divergence was in the form of action. Christian extremists are not currently conducting global jihad and carrying out mass murders at an ever increasing rate. Islamic extremists are. This is not a point which you addressed (and there is no reason why you should) but I am a little baffled as to why you should take me to task for agreeing with you.


No, I did not ask for this and I am again baffled that you should think I did. I stated that current Islamic extremism was sharply differentiated from its Christian counterparts by its actions. Specifically, the Islamists carry out real world extreme violence and mass murder, and the Christian extremists largely do not, and when they do it is on far, far fewer occasions and on a much smaller scale.


Really? Hundreds? In the last few decades? (I assume you don't want to follow the Islamist example of harping back to the crusades). Are you seriously contending that Christian and Judaic terrorist atrocities in recent years in any way compare in their number, frequency, and scale to Islamic terrorist atrocities?

If Christians have flown airliners into skyscrapers, driven trucks through crowds murdering dozens of innocents, or blown up buses and trains while shouting about how great Jesus is, then I confess I missed it.

In reply to Tony Naylor:


There are places were communal violence of quite an extreme level breaks down on Muslim/Christian divides, with Christian groups being just, if not more ready to kill - CAR being the most obvious example in the last couple of years. But this is happening in places we simple don't care or know about so unless you are a World Service regular, you are unlikely to have heard about. Many Muslims would point to the Bosnian war similarly, but of course we in the west don't tend to view it that way, seeing much more political ideologies or state power involved.