5 ms·

If you think ISIS doesn't have a carefully planned PR strategy, I have a bridge or two to sell you. Of course they're using medieval methods, since their brandi

If you think ISIS doesn't have a carefully planned PR strategy, I have a bridge or two to sell you. Of course they're using medieval methods, since their branding is "pure, original, undiluted Islam". But it's absolutely calculated.

acqq 11y ago
> their branding is "pure, original, undiluted Islam" That's actually true, and it's not just "branding," nobody can deny them that they are qouting the words in the primary holy books. And still some people believe in "peacefulness" of that "pure, original, undiluted Islam." It's the opposite: only by "diluting" (honestly reforming) it can the violence induced by it be avoided long-term. But it's easy to imagine how those that don't want the reform will behave: more "pure, undiluted" acts.
- the_af 11y ago
  Yes: pure, unreformed Abrahamic religions are not very peaceful. They are quite blood-thirsty and vengeful. Let's for a second agree that everyone reasonable wants their religion modernized and adapted to the current world (and ISIS, religious white supremacists, and abortion clinic bombers are not "reasonable"). We can disregard everyone who wants pure, unadulterated, literal Islam or Christianity. That said, there's a reasonable case to be made that this is ISIS "branding". What their leaders truly believe is unknowable, but we can see their masterful use of propaganda, with smiling jihadis next to happy-looking children, and of course also the brutal beheadings shot in high-definition using modern techniques. I doubt the Prophet approved of HD cams. There's also a good case to be made, as in this article from The Atlantic, "The Phony Islam of ISIS" ( http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/what-muslims-really-want-isis-atlantic/386156/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/wha... ) that "literal" intepretations of the Quran and other Holy Texts are a red herring. You cannot claim there is a literal interpretation; just an interpretation that claims to be literal. But holy texts are rife with ambiguous and contradictory paragraphs, as explained in the article -- you can find an equivalent of "You Shall Not Kill" and in a different verse "Kill The Infidel", and you need some Wise Man to explain to you "ok, you shall not kill believers, but you can kill the unbeliever, unless there is a full moon (as mentioned in verse XYZ), in which case you can only kill goats". But this is the Wise Man's interpretation; by definition there is no single valid "literal" interpretation. And once you accept there is some degree of interpretation at play, you can no longer claim ISIS is evidence that Islam is fundamentally more blood-thirsty and terrorism-prone than other religions; just that some of the current high profile terrorist organizations are using their reading of the Quoran to justify their actions, and that they claim their interpretation is the "purest". Even within ISIS and Al-Qaeda there is doctrinal dispute, as evidenced in this other article from The Atlantic, "What ISIS really wants" ( http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... ), which shows fundamentalist clerics disagree, and this creates splits. How can this be, if all of them believe they are following "pure, unadulterated Islam"?
  - mercurial 11y ago
    Well, that's religion for you: the C++ of ideological systems, where you pick the components that work for you, and then claim that's the only way to do it.
  - acqq 11y ago
    No. You haven't read Quran. You would not be able to write what you do. Even in "Letter To Baghdadi" those who signed quote: www.lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf "God  says in the Qur’an: ‘Because of that, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, or for corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers have already come to them with clear proofs, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32)." And that is actually cherry picking. If you read the sentence before and the few sentences after together with 5:32 you get what was said: "32 For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth. 33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; " That's 5:32 and 5:33 together. Is there some nuance? The command is the "old" one given to the Jews but they became "prodigals," says "god" speaking in plural about him (as he does on other places in Quran too). The "reward" is specified one verse afterwards. Or even better read the whole Sura 5, to get the whole message. One clearer translation (start from the verse 1 and beware the following side is behind the left arrow): http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#aya=4_176&m=hafs&qaree=husary&trans=en_sh http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#aya=4_176&m=hafs&qare...
    - the_af 11y ago
      I'm sorry, "no"? "No" to which part? That ISIS uses modern propaganda techniques? To the article I linked? To the assertion that holy texts need interpretation? That there is a doctrinal dispute between factions of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, therefore showing there can be no single interpretation? All of it? You're so hell-bent in replying "wrong" and "no" to every post you disagree with, it's really hard to understand what you actually mean, beyond "here are some horrible passages from the Quran".

acqq 11y ago

> their branding is "pure, original, undiluted Islam" That's actually true, and it's not just "branding," nobody can deny them that they are qouting the words in the primary holy books. And still some people believe in "peacefulness" of that "pure, original, undiluted Islam." It's the opposite: only by "diluting" (honestly reforming) it can the violence induced by it be avoided long-term. But it's easy to imagine how those that don't want the reform will behave: more "pure, undiluted" acts.

the_af 11y ago
Yes: pure, unreformed Abrahamic religions are not very peaceful. They are quite blood-thirsty and vengeful. Let's for a second agree that everyone reasonable wants their religion modernized and adapted to the current world (and ISIS, religious white supremacists, and abortion clinic bombers are not "reasonable"). We can disregard everyone who wants pure, unadulterated, literal Islam or Christianity. That said, there's a reasonable case to be made that this is ISIS "branding". What their leaders truly believe is unknowable, but we can see their masterful use of propaganda, with smiling jihadis next to happy-looking children, and of course also the brutal beheadings shot in high-definition using modern techniques. I doubt the Prophet approved of HD cams. There's also a good case to be made, as in this article from The Atlantic, "The Phony Islam of ISIS" ( http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/what-muslims-really-want-isis-atlantic/386156/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/wha... ) that "literal" intepretations of the Quran and other Holy Texts are a red herring. You cannot claim there is a literal interpretation; just an interpretation that claims to be literal. But holy texts are rife with ambiguous and contradictory paragraphs, as explained in the article -- you can find an equivalent of "You Shall Not Kill" and in a different verse "Kill The Infidel", and you need some Wise Man to explain to you "ok, you shall not kill believers, but you can kill the unbeliever, unless there is a full moon (as mentioned in verse XYZ), in which case you can only kill goats". But this is the Wise Man's interpretation; by definition there is no single valid "literal" interpretation. And once you accept there is some degree of interpretation at play, you can no longer claim ISIS is evidence that Islam is fundamentally more blood-thirsty and terrorism-prone than other religions; just that some of the current high profile terrorist organizations are using their reading of the Quoran to justify their actions, and that they claim their interpretation is the "purest". Even within ISIS and Al-Qaeda there is doctrinal dispute, as evidenced in this other article from The Atlantic, "What ISIS really wants" ( http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... ), which shows fundamentalist clerics disagree, and this creates splits. How can this be, if all of them believe they are following "pure, unadulterated Islam"?
- mercurial 11y ago
  Well, that's religion for you: the C++ of ideological systems, where you pick the components that work for you, and then claim that's the only way to do it.
- acqq 11y ago
  No. You haven't read Quran. You would not be able to write what you do. Even in "Letter To Baghdadi" those who signed quote: www.lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf "God  says in the Qur’an: ‘Because of that, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, or for corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers have already come to them with clear proofs, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32)." And that is actually cherry picking. If you read the sentence before and the few sentences after together with 5:32 you get what was said: "32 For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth. 33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; " That's 5:32 and 5:33 together. Is there some nuance? The command is the "old" one given to the Jews but they became "prodigals," says "god" speaking in plural about him (as he does on other places in Quran too). The "reward" is specified one verse afterwards. Or even better read the whole Sura 5, to get the whole message. One clearer translation (start from the verse 1 and beware the following side is behind the left arrow): http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#aya=4_176&m=hafs&qaree=husary&trans=en_sh http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#aya=4_176&m=hafs&qare...
  - the_af 11y ago
    I'm sorry, "no"? "No" to which part? That ISIS uses modern propaganda techniques? To the article I linked? To the assertion that holy texts need interpretation? That there is a doctrinal dispute between factions of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, therefore showing there can be no single interpretation? All of it? You're so hell-bent in replying "wrong" and "no" to every post you disagree with, it's really hard to understand what you actually mean, beyond "here are some horrible passages from the Quran".