10 ms·

What ISIS Really Wants

111 points by vilda 11y ago

sparkzilla 11y ago
This response article misses a major point, most likely deliberately, that ISIS are following the actions of Mohammed himself, who they see as the perfect man. In the same way that Christians (in theory) would like to emulate the life of Christ, fundamentalist Muslims want to emulate the life of Mohammed. But Mohammed was not a man of peace. He was a warrior, who killed his enemies, targeted the Jews, kept slaves, encouraged rape of female captives, beheaded prisoners, took territory by force, treated non-Muslims as second-class citizens, and had a child bride. Therefore many of the verses in the Koran and Hadith are about these topics, and as they are a core part of the founder's life, they cannot be removed or reformed. [1]http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm
- selimthegrim 11y ago
  I think the response would have done better to focus on this: https://cyberfitna.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/nitpicking-woods-piece-matters/ https://cyberfitna.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/nitpicking-woods...
  - sparkzilla 11y ago
    This article seems to say that ISIS' violence against civilians and other Muslims has its roots in a 13th century interpretation of Islamic warfare, but that's obviously not true. One example is that Mohammed killed the jews in Medina after they had peacefully surrendered. Another is that the Muslim expansion before the that time was accompanied by plenty of violence.
    - _nedR 11y ago
      Citation please. And a more trustworthy and neutral one than what you have given. Which battle are you referring to? edit: Perhaps the Battle of the Trench. If so, your comment is misleading. The Jews were forced into a surrender after having betrayed their former muslim allies in favour of the confederates. From wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench) : "Following the retreat of the Confederate army, the Banu Qurayza neighbourhoods were besieged by the Muslims, in revenge for their treachery. After a 25-day siege of their neighbourhood the Banu Qurayza unconditionally surrendered. When the Banu Qurayza tribe surrendered, the Muslim army seized their stronghold and their possessions.[29] On the request of the Banu Aus, who were allied to the Qurayza, Muhammad chose one of them, Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh, as an arbitrator to pronounce judgment upon them. Sa'ad, who would later die of his wounds from the battle, decreed the sentence according to the Torah, in which the men shall be killed and women and children enslaved. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 says: When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. [30] Muhammad approved of this decision, and the next day the sentence was carried out."
      - sparkzilla 11y ago
        Your point illustrates rather than negates mine, which is that Mohammed was a military leader, rather than a peacemaker. After the Battle of the Trench his army, under his command, killed many hundreds of Jews, who had surrendered. Here is the next section of the Wikipedia page: >Then they surrendered, and the Apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the Apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the Apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the Apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the Apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off. This actually says that Mohammed himself beheaded the Jews, but even if he didn't, he allowed it to happen. Thus, ISIS follow this same pattern.
- skywhopper 11y ago
  I think I will take the word of the billion Muslims who don't believe Islam is about war, slavery, and rape over the word of you and ISIS. Judaism is not about emulating Abraham, David, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, or Isaac all of whom did at least some of the terrible things you mention. So why do you presume to speak for Islam, rather than listen to the vast, overwhelming majority of its followers?
  - renegadesensei 11y ago
    I don't think he is speaking for Islam. He said that ISIS is attempting to follow the life of Mohammad. He did not say that what ISIS is doing represents the views of most Muslims.
    - jberryman 11y ago
      I understood his point to be implying that Islam inherently and uniquely among religions gives rise to the sort of radicalism we see with Isis. If I'm not misunderstanding, I hope he expands on what he thinks the implications of this worldview are.
      - musha68k 11y ago
        The problem with the whole issue is that all of us need to talk much more about religion in general. Many people feel the need to believe in something which extends beyond physical reality and that's the reason we have freedom of religion. Time again history has shown though that religions often tend to go overboard in terms of violence so most modern societies have taken a pragmatic approach to offer freedom of religion under certain checks (i.e. not infringing on the freedoms of others from a secular perspective). That said Einstein believed in god so don't belittle someone because of their religion and most importantly don't let fear take over your humanity (most people never got asked if they wanted to be "a muslim", "a christian" or "a jew"). What we need is more dialogue, not wars - those usually just create even more suffering and pain. Talk to people - especially to the ones you don't feel comfortable talking to - we are all together on this pale blue dot.
- jberryman 11y ago
  > that ISIS are following the actions of Mohammed himself Maybe, or maybe not. Anyway religions have no inherent meaning external from the way in which they're practiced and understood by their practitioners. What I'd like you to expand on is: what do the distinctions you're making in your argument entail (w/r/t public policy or just personal behavior)?
- the_rosentotter 11y ago
  For each of the points you mentioned I can make a solid case supported by examples that Mohammad was a proponent of peace, extraordinarily lenient towards his enemies, protected Jews as well as Christians, spearheaded the liberation of slaves and the abolition of slavery, was extremely strict about the fair treatment of captives including women, and in general instituted protections for the weak parties in society, including children and widows. As a peaceful, tolerant and rational Muslim, the likes of which somehow manage to exist in spite of the purported bad example of the man we strive to follow, I just want to put this out there not to leave your comment undisputed, in case there are people who are not knowledgeable about the topic. I don't have time for a treatise but as I said, there are more sides to every story, so do your own research. (On an unrelated note I flagged this story, since sigh HN is one of the few places where this stuff doesn't get stuffed in your face all the time.)
  - bmmayer1 11y ago
    I think the point is that like all religions, Islam contains in its holy books rationale and justification for many barbaric acts that most Muslims (such as yourself) don't follow. There is nothing special about Islam in this regard; however, in the modern world Islam happens to be 'It' right now in that it has a large armed and motivated radicalized branch of followers. This doesn't indict all Muslims in their crime, nor does it indict Islam any more than in indicts any other religion, for better or for worse. All it means is understanding that we're fighting a religious enemy bent on religiously motivated ends. In fact, fighting this enemy requires the vocal support of peaceful Muslims whose countries are being taken over by these theocrats, those whose livelihoods in Beirut and Baghdad and Karachi and Jakarta are much more at threat than livelihoods in Paris and Madrid and New York City. That said, I don't have a solution; I don't think anyone does. You can't fight a religion, only people, and you can't blame all followers of a religion for the actions of a subset of that religion (or, as some would have you believe, a non-subset of that religion). All you can do is name your enemy, and when they declare war on you (which they have--they've declared war on civilization, modernity, Muslims and non-Muslims alike), declare war back.
    - ethbro 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 11y ago
  Religious flamewars are not ok on Hacker News. Please don't do this here. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10588101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10588101 and marked it off-topic.
japhyr 11y ago
This article was really helpful for me in developing a better understanding of ISIS. I found the dependence on possession of land particularly interesting. That fact seems particularly important in any global strategy for taking power away from ISIS.
- vlehto 11y ago
  During soviet invasion there was Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen. Sympathizers of that group founded al-Qaeda. Sympathizers of Al-qaeda founded Taleban. Sympathizers Al-qaeda founded ISIS. Muslim extremists have shown potential to go international, local or underground. Name changes, people change, methods change. Bullshit continues. ISIS has predicted it's own downfall in near future, so they will appear to be right if they are stripped off land. Given internet is more widespread than ever, Muslims are more widespread than ever and secular Muslim leaders are in tough spot. Imagine ISIS will turn into international underground terrorist organization like al-quaeda? But with more vengeance, credibility and supporters. To me confiding the problem into poor part of middle east seems like the best option.
  - RobertoG 11y ago
    You make a causal relation, that in my opinion is correct, between the Mujahideen and ISIS but you only mention the invasion of Afghanistan as it was circumstantial. It's a more correct theory, I think, to say that the Mujahideen were caused by the invasion of Afghanistan and the support of the CIA in order to mess with the Russians. And we could follow from there. Islam could be a religion of war or only an excuse that those that want to do war use, I have not the answer. But I feel dismay reading the discussion that there is now in Europe and the States. From the comment sections of HN or the NYT to the discourses of the politics, the majority of the commenters forget to talks about, for instance, why there is a "land of nobody" where the creation of a Caliphate is possible. It's like if Irak, Iran, EUA, Europe, Arabia, Israel has nothing to do with what is going here. As if it all the violence comes from something in the water in the region. How is it possible that the Islam nature is our main concern? To those that are so worried about how violent is the Islam I would like to remember that is the destruction of Iraq, Syria, and in general all the area, with uncountable deaths, by the way, what allow those crazy fanatics to be in a position of create a country. Surely some people would like to excuse all that saying that "mistakes were done". Ok, but, at least, we should talk about those mistakes.
vowelless 11y ago
It is important to get a diverse set of opinions about this situation. Here is a response to the article: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/what-muslims-really-want-isis-atlantic/386156/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/wha...
- duaneb 11y ago
  Frankly, I think the response completely missed the point of the article, which is about the intentions of ISIS. However. There is definitely an ideological fight here over what Islam is. I just think it is a separate discussion altogether. I didn't read the article as attempting to do anything but discern the intentions of the state. Could someone explain? I'm having a difficult time not seeing these issues as a projection of fears.
- agarden 11y ago
  I read both. I wish the article you linked to had more substance. It provides no argument that ISIS is misinterpreting Islam, only assertions. If someone has an article that actually makes that case, citing texts and explaining the misinterpretation, I'd like to read it.
  - throwaway_user 11y ago
    It is hard to explain the idea of the narrative and give all the details within a couple of pages. There are detailed (and somewhat tedious) refutations from Islamic theologians such as al-Yaqubi's Refuting ISIS (http://www.amazon.com/Refuting-ISIS-Religious-Ideological-Foundations/dp/1908224126 http://www.amazon.com/Refuting-ISIS-Religious-Ideological-Fo...). Mohammad al-Yaqubi is an orthodox Sunni scholar who was the Imam of the largest Mosque in Damascus until being forced into exile by the Syrian government. There are other works by scholars from different currents within Sunni Islam. As a lay Muslim, I will give a few examples. The interpretation of correct Islamic creed and behavior according to Sunni Muslims is according to the Qur'an and Hadith as understood by the early Muslims, principally the first four caliphs and some of the closest students of the Prophet, succeeding generations, and four or five schools of law established thereafter. Within these schools, there is debate and re-interpretation. So simply citing a snippet of text to support your position, if it contradicts other texts, established practice, or informed consensus opinion is not going to fly. For example, Daesh burned a captured Jordanian pilot alive while his tribe and the Jordanian government wanted to have him released under a prisoner exchange. There are specific Hadith and verses to support that prisoners of war can be ransomed or exchanged. More pointedly, there is a well accepted Hadith that burning is specifically prohibited as a punishment for even the severest enemies. This is a well-known Hadith and is accepted by all schools of law. So Daesh not only ignored all the Islamically available options which they might have used, but did an act to further inflame specific Sunni Muslim communities that they claim to defend. Further, they did something which would offend all people ethically and goes against specific Islamic rules. While slavery in the medieval period was practiced against enemies that would do the same, there has been a consensus among Muslims and non-Muslims alike that this is a thing of the past. Muslim governemnts have signed specific international conventions banning it. Even extremely vile outfits like their predecessors like AQ had never mentioned bringing it back. They however chose to revive it against communities that were not doing this to them. Sending irregular forces under the guise of a Muslim community which is bound by a legal agreement with a country and endangering said agreement is something that is again prohibited. i.e., the Muslims living in France as citizens or foreigners are under a legal framework of citizenship or diplomatic recognition of Muslim countries wherein they are given legal protection in France in return for obeying French law and not fighting them.
fivedogit 11y ago
Read this a few days ago. So good. Everything I've heard otherwise in the media has been superficial by comparison. TL;DR ISIS is a doomsday cult analogous to David Koresh's. They interpret the Koran exactly literally and any deviation from it is punishable by death (this includes AQ and all shia for modernization offenses). They believe they are a primary actor in the prophecy that'll bring about the ultimate battle with "Rome" at Dabiq, Syria and the judgement day. My take is that while modern mainstream Christianity laughed off the Branch Davidians as crazy people who offered nothing, mainstream Sunnis see IS as similarly crazy with the important exception of "well at least they're fighting the Shia". In other words, there is some tacit support for IS based on millennia-old factionalism, (edit: which is how they've grown from a small cult into a significant movement). An interesting point in the article is that while AQ can hide underground and never be fully eradicated, IS has to maintain land and provide government services under the caliphate to remain legitimate (according to the Koran, of course). This makes it an entirely different enemy that can, in theory, be destroyed. Further, no peace can ever be negotiated because the borders of IS have to keep expanding or the caliphate is no longer valid. That is, Muhammad says all non-believers have to be converted, full stop. Anyway, the article is outstanding. Take an hour to read the whole thing.
- dingaling 11y ago
  It does create a non sequitor in my mind that such cults are so implacably opposed to modernisation or adoption of contemporary culture, but will happily fire a captured M16 or fly an Mi-24 in support of their objectives...
  - cholantesh 11y ago
    My understanding is that it's not modernization in that sense but re-interpretation of scripture.
- jnbiche 11y ago
  > Further, no peace can ever be negotiated because the borders of IS have to keep expanding or the caliphate is no longer valid. That is, Muhammad says all non-believers have to be converted, full stop. I think a lot of liberal media in the West tends to whitewash some of the, shall we say, more unpleasant actions of Islam's founder described in the Qu'ran (violence, child bride, etc). However, the assertion that Muhammad said that all non-believers must be converted is false, full stop. There is a very famous verse of the Quran addresses this categorically (in the words of Muhammed as supposedly dictated by God): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256 Indeed, the entire tax base of most Muslim empires, most notably the Ottoman, was based on taxing non-Muslims (Muslims were exempt from this tax, but had to serve in the military). So the rule against forcible conversions was not only stated clearly in the Qu'ran, but there have been unbroken enforcement of this rule by Muslim empires, kingdoms, and nations from Muhammed's time to the modern era, in a large part because of the incentives those entities had in keeping a large number of non-Muslims to tax. This is not to say that Muslims never forcibly converted people, but it is/was widely recognized as being forbidden by the Quran. Now, this is a separate matter from expanding borders. The Islamic State surely would love nothing more than to establish a caliphate at the farthest historical borders, so N. African up across Spain, Europe across the Balkans up to Vienna, and all of Central Asia. That said, I can't see them ever expanding beyond the Levant, even in the worst case scenario. Even without a massive Western ground intervention (which would obviously happen if they threatened Spain, if not before), IS would have to conquer Turkey and Iran, and that seems extraordinarily unlikely.
pomfia 11y ago
So this is Hacker News, is it ?
jospoortvliet 11y ago
aaand another article about what isis wants. How can they all be so conflicting? he Atlantic concludes that ISIS = Islam, while The Nation concludes that it's just another group of poor, abused people. http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/ http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-inte...
vixen99 11y ago
Attack the head and albeit slowly the body will wither. Starting point: is there a single person anywhere, with a shred of intellectual credibility, who supports ISIS? The negative answer should be used to publicly paint its followers as the intellectually barren though extremely dangerous barbarians that they are. No need to spell out why this does not happen though properly handled, I think it could.
_nedR 11y ago
Such a loaded article (Quote from article "The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. ") making its way to the top of Hacker news (which shuns political articles like the plague) is very troubling to me as a Muslim. Seems like the Muslims of 2015 are basically moving to the position of the Jews of 1915.
- musha68k 11y ago
  Thank you for your comment _nedR! I agree, the focus should be more on the potential perniciousness of unchecked religious fundamentalism in general (it doesn't matter if it's the KKK or ISIS) and middle-east history of the last 15-30 years in particular (why do some people fall for such simplistic, de-humanizing organizations)? ISIS is essentially a fascist movement and has as little to do with main-stream islamic values as the KKK has with christian ones. You might find this article on the "why" less simplistic: http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/ http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-inte... I think putting time and effort into these kinds of political and religious discussions is very important as long as we keep a cool and open mind - love and understanding against potential fear and hate towards "others" so to speak. Peace! :)
- dragontamer 11y ago
  I agree it is loaded, but after the Paris attacks, people are scared. So I hope you can be understanding at this time. I went to school with Muslims during 9/11 (not many, but enough that I listened to them). I understand the frustration in your religion being singled out, misinterpreted and so forth.
- planck01 11y ago
  >Seems like the Muslims of 2015 are basically moving to the position of the Jews of 1915. Except that the Jews of 1915 were not blowing up, mas-murdering nor terrorizing people, nor were they waging war on non-Jews. Also, Jews were prosecuted throughout the world and eventually deported and/or killed, while Muslims are not in any way. Concluding, it is not alike in any way.
  - 11y ago
ssjava 11y ago
This article misses a major point, which is that there are many sects within Islam, the author (and non-Muslims in general) only know of or acknowledg Sunni vs Shiite, when in fact there more sects that claim to be Muslim than are in Christianity and Judaism combined. The one that ISIL, Al Qaeda, and almost all terrorist groups follow is called Wahhabism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism. To understand what this group preaches you need to know the history of the region. I'll spare the details and just mention that this group was supported by Muhamed bin Saud (the ruling family in Saudi Arsbia which the country is named after). Wahhabism preaches much of what this article describes in the senseless killing of hummens, which what bin Saud needed the justification for when killing the Muslims of the region while rising to power. They have many devious teachings with deeply rooted evil that true Islam rejects.
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Everyone is so caught up in the theological discussion I'm almost wondering if most posters read only half the article before commenting. In the end I think IS will fail, it's just a question of how and when. There was an article in the New York Times the other day that detailed how little room IS has left to expand without digging into Syria (and facing the Russians), or Turkey (which feels more threatened by the Kurds and uses the instability as a political smokescreen but has more than enough capacity to fight back), or pretty much anywhere else but pockets of Libya. Basically, they only formed and grew so prolifically because their enemies were exceptionally weak and unwilling to fight for sand dunes, let alone the ones that contain oil. I think the best way to deal with IS is to understand the historical and religious underpinnings to get a sense of why people flock to it, then divorce the religious aspect from the dangerous entity that follows the same rules of economics that everyone is a part of. Starve the state of revenue, undermine its ability to provide for its citizens, and make it clear to supporters of the Islamic State in the Middle East and elsewhere that IS cannot effectively function any better than a Tunisian democracy or an Egyptian dictatorship. Instead of baiting their desire for an apocalyptic conflagration, slowly drain their strength and appeal. Let supporters across the planet see a strict caliphate in action and how little it accomplishes adter the easy deserts have been claimed. A weak loser that doesn't go anywhere doesn't sound exactly like the fate chosen by God.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - dragontamer 11y ago
    As would any reasonable approach. Total War has not happened in nearly 80 years... during World War II. And without turning the situation into a "Total War", I find it hard to believe that any solution would take less than decades. One Hospital gets bombed in Afghanistan and everyone gets their panties in a twist. The modern world does not like seeing "mistakes of war", despite the fact that we in WW2 would send Japanese to internment camps and opened up the American office of censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship ISIS is the biggest threat against the Western World today, but does not draw enough bloodlust among the general population. We are too war weary from Iraq and Afghanistan to really commit to a true fight. And I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.
dang 11y ago
This article has been posted enough now: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=What%20ISIS%20Really%20Wants&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=What%20ISIS%20Really%20Wants&s... Indeed, by HN's criteria the current thread is a dupe. But we won't kill it, since discussion is ongoing.

111 points by vilda 11y ago

This response article misses a major point, most likely deliberately, that ISIS are following the actions of Mohammed himself, who they see as the perfect man. In the same way that Christians (in theory) would like to emulate the life of Christ, fundamentalist Muslims want to emulate the life of Mohammed. But Mohammed was not a man of peace. He was a warrior, who killed his enemies, targeted the Jews, kept slaves, encouraged rape of female captives, beheaded prisoners, took territory by force, treated non-Muslims as second-class citizens, and had a child bride. Therefore many of the verses in the Koran and Hadith are about these topics, and as they are a core part of the founder's life, they cannot be removed or reformed. [1]http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm

selimthegrim 11y ago
I think the response would have done better to focus on this: https://cyberfitna.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/nitpicking-woods-piece-matters/ https://cyberfitna.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/nitpicking-woods...
- sparkzilla 11y ago
  This article seems to say that ISIS' violence against civilians and other Muslims has its roots in a 13th century interpretation of Islamic warfare, but that's obviously not true. One example is that Mohammed killed the jews in Medina after they had peacefully surrendered. Another is that the Muslim expansion before the that time was accompanied by plenty of violence.
  - _nedR 11y ago
    Citation please. And a more trustworthy and neutral one than what you have given. Which battle are you referring to? edit: Perhaps the Battle of the Trench. If so, your comment is misleading. The Jews were forced into a surrender after having betrayed their former muslim allies in favour of the confederates. From wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench) : "Following the retreat of the Confederate army, the Banu Qurayza neighbourhoods were besieged by the Muslims, in revenge for their treachery. After a 25-day siege of their neighbourhood the Banu Qurayza unconditionally surrendered. When the Banu Qurayza tribe surrendered, the Muslim army seized their stronghold and their possessions.[29] On the request of the Banu Aus, who were allied to the Qurayza, Muhammad chose one of them, Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh, as an arbitrator to pronounce judgment upon them. Sa'ad, who would later die of his wounds from the battle, decreed the sentence according to the Torah, in which the men shall be killed and women and children enslaved. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 says: When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. [30] Muhammad approved of this decision, and the next day the sentence was carried out."
    - sparkzilla 11y ago
      Your point illustrates rather than negates mine, which is that Mohammed was a military leader, rather than a peacemaker. After the Battle of the Trench his army, under his command, killed many hundreds of Jews, who had surrendered. Here is the next section of the Wikipedia page: >Then they surrendered, and the Apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the Apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the Apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the Apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the Apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off. This actually says that Mohammed himself beheaded the Jews, but even if he didn't, he allowed it to happen. Thus, ISIS follow this same pattern.
skywhopper 11y ago
I think I will take the word of the billion Muslims who don't believe Islam is about war, slavery, and rape over the word of you and ISIS. Judaism is not about emulating Abraham, David, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, or Isaac all of whom did at least some of the terrible things you mention. So why do you presume to speak for Islam, rather than listen to the vast, overwhelming majority of its followers?
- renegadesensei 11y ago
  I don't think he is speaking for Islam. He said that ISIS is attempting to follow the life of Mohammad. He did not say that what ISIS is doing represents the views of most Muslims.
  - jberryman 11y ago
    I understood his point to be implying that Islam inherently and uniquely among religions gives rise to the sort of radicalism we see with Isis. If I'm not misunderstanding, I hope he expands on what he thinks the implications of this worldview are.
    - musha68k 11y ago
      The problem with the whole issue is that all of us need to talk much more about religion in general. Many people feel the need to believe in something which extends beyond physical reality and that's the reason we have freedom of religion. Time again history has shown though that religions often tend to go overboard in terms of violence so most modern societies have taken a pragmatic approach to offer freedom of religion under certain checks (i.e. not infringing on the freedoms of others from a secular perspective). That said Einstein believed in god so don't belittle someone because of their religion and most importantly don't let fear take over your humanity (most people never got asked if they wanted to be "a muslim", "a christian" or "a jew"). What we need is more dialogue, not wars - those usually just create even more suffering and pain. Talk to people - especially to the ones you don't feel comfortable talking to - we are all together on this pale blue dot.
jberryman 11y ago
> that ISIS are following the actions of Mohammed himself Maybe, or maybe not. Anyway religions have no inherent meaning external from the way in which they're practiced and understood by their practitioners. What I'd like you to expand on is: what do the distinctions you're making in your argument entail (w/r/t public policy or just personal behavior)?
the_rosentotter 11y ago
For each of the points you mentioned I can make a solid case supported by examples that Mohammad was a proponent of peace, extraordinarily lenient towards his enemies, protected Jews as well as Christians, spearheaded the liberation of slaves and the abolition of slavery, was extremely strict about the fair treatment of captives including women, and in general instituted protections for the weak parties in society, including children and widows. As a peaceful, tolerant and rational Muslim, the likes of which somehow manage to exist in spite of the purported bad example of the man we strive to follow, I just want to put this out there not to leave your comment undisputed, in case there are people who are not knowledgeable about the topic. I don't have time for a treatise but as I said, there are more sides to every story, so do your own research. (On an unrelated note I flagged this story, since sigh HN is one of the few places where this stuff doesn't get stuffed in your face all the time.)
- bmmayer1 11y ago
  I think the point is that like all religions, Islam contains in its holy books rationale and justification for many barbaric acts that most Muslims (such as yourself) don't follow. There is nothing special about Islam in this regard; however, in the modern world Islam happens to be 'It' right now in that it has a large armed and motivated radicalized branch of followers. This doesn't indict all Muslims in their crime, nor does it indict Islam any more than in indicts any other religion, for better or for worse. All it means is understanding that we're fighting a religious enemy bent on religiously motivated ends. In fact, fighting this enemy requires the vocal support of peaceful Muslims whose countries are being taken over by these theocrats, those whose livelihoods in Beirut and Baghdad and Karachi and Jakarta are much more at threat than livelihoods in Paris and Madrid and New York City. That said, I don't have a solution; I don't think anyone does. You can't fight a religion, only people, and you can't blame all followers of a religion for the actions of a subset of that religion (or, as some would have you believe, a non-subset of that religion). All you can do is name your enemy, and when they declare war on you (which they have--they've declared war on civilization, modernity, Muslims and non-Muslims alike), declare war back.
  - ethbro 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dang 11y ago
Religious flamewars are not ok on Hacker News. Please don't do this here. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10588101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10588101 and marked it off-topic.

japhyr 11y ago

This article was really helpful for me in developing a better understanding of ISIS. I found the dependence on possession of land particularly interesting. That fact seems particularly important in any global strategy for taking power away from ISIS.

vlehto 11y ago
During soviet invasion there was Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen. Sympathizers of that group founded al-Qaeda. Sympathizers of Al-qaeda founded Taleban. Sympathizers Al-qaeda founded ISIS. Muslim extremists have shown potential to go international, local or underground. Name changes, people change, methods change. Bullshit continues. ISIS has predicted it's own downfall in near future, so they will appear to be right if they are stripped off land. Given internet is more widespread than ever, Muslims are more widespread than ever and secular Muslim leaders are in tough spot. Imagine ISIS will turn into international underground terrorist organization like al-quaeda? But with more vengeance, credibility and supporters. To me confiding the problem into poor part of middle east seems like the best option.
- RobertoG 11y ago
  You make a causal relation, that in my opinion is correct, between the Mujahideen and ISIS but you only mention the invasion of Afghanistan as it was circumstantial. It's a more correct theory, I think, to say that the Mujahideen were caused by the invasion of Afghanistan and the support of the CIA in order to mess with the Russians. And we could follow from there. Islam could be a religion of war or only an excuse that those that want to do war use, I have not the answer. But I feel dismay reading the discussion that there is now in Europe and the States. From the comment sections of HN or the NYT to the discourses of the politics, the majority of the commenters forget to talks about, for instance, why there is a "land of nobody" where the creation of a Caliphate is possible. It's like if Irak, Iran, EUA, Europe, Arabia, Israel has nothing to do with what is going here. As if it all the violence comes from something in the water in the region. How is it possible that the Islam nature is our main concern? To those that are so worried about how violent is the Islam I would like to remember that is the destruction of Iraq, Syria, and in general all the area, with uncountable deaths, by the way, what allow those crazy fanatics to be in a position of create a country. Surely some people would like to excuse all that saying that "mistakes were done". Ok, but, at least, we should talk about those mistakes.

vowelless 11y ago

It is important to get a diverse set of opinions about this situation. Here is a response to the article: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/what-muslims-really-want-isis-atlantic/386156/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/wha...

duaneb 11y ago
Frankly, I think the response completely missed the point of the article, which is about the intentions of ISIS. However. There is definitely an ideological fight here over what Islam is. I just think it is a separate discussion altogether. I didn't read the article as attempting to do anything but discern the intentions of the state. Could someone explain? I'm having a difficult time not seeing these issues as a projection of fears.
agarden 11y ago
I read both. I wish the article you linked to had more substance. It provides no argument that ISIS is misinterpreting Islam, only assertions. If someone has an article that actually makes that case, citing texts and explaining the misinterpretation, I'd like to read it.
- throwaway_user 11y ago
  It is hard to explain the idea of the narrative and give all the details within a couple of pages. There are detailed (and somewhat tedious) refutations from Islamic theologians such as al-Yaqubi's Refuting ISIS (http://www.amazon.com/Refuting-ISIS-Religious-Ideological-Foundations/dp/1908224126 http://www.amazon.com/Refuting-ISIS-Religious-Ideological-Fo...). Mohammad al-Yaqubi is an orthodox Sunni scholar who was the Imam of the largest Mosque in Damascus until being forced into exile by the Syrian government. There are other works by scholars from different currents within Sunni Islam. As a lay Muslim, I will give a few examples. The interpretation of correct Islamic creed and behavior according to Sunni Muslims is according to the Qur'an and Hadith as understood by the early Muslims, principally the first four caliphs and some of the closest students of the Prophet, succeeding generations, and four or five schools of law established thereafter. Within these schools, there is debate and re-interpretation. So simply citing a snippet of text to support your position, if it contradicts other texts, established practice, or informed consensus opinion is not going to fly. For example, Daesh burned a captured Jordanian pilot alive while his tribe and the Jordanian government wanted to have him released under a prisoner exchange. There are specific Hadith and verses to support that prisoners of war can be ransomed or exchanged. More pointedly, there is a well accepted Hadith that burning is specifically prohibited as a punishment for even the severest enemies. This is a well-known Hadith and is accepted by all schools of law. So Daesh not only ignored all the Islamically available options which they might have used, but did an act to further inflame specific Sunni Muslim communities that they claim to defend. Further, they did something which would offend all people ethically and goes against specific Islamic rules. While slavery in the medieval period was practiced against enemies that would do the same, there has been a consensus among Muslims and non-Muslims alike that this is a thing of the past. Muslim governemnts have signed specific international conventions banning it. Even extremely vile outfits like their predecessors like AQ had never mentioned bringing it back. They however chose to revive it against communities that were not doing this to them. Sending irregular forces under the guise of a Muslim community which is bound by a legal agreement with a country and endangering said agreement is something that is again prohibited. i.e., the Muslims living in France as citizens or foreigners are under a legal framework of citizenship or diplomatic recognition of Muslim countries wherein they are given legal protection in France in return for obeying French law and not fighting them.

fivedogit 11y ago

Read this a few days ago. So good. Everything I've heard otherwise in the media has been superficial by comparison. TL;DR ISIS is a doomsday cult analogous to David Koresh's. They interpret the Koran exactly literally and any deviation from it is punishable by death (this includes AQ and all shia for modernization offenses). They believe they are a primary actor in the prophecy that'll bring about the ultimate battle with "Rome" at Dabiq, Syria and the judgement day. My take is that while modern mainstream Christianity laughed off the Branch Davidians as crazy people who offered nothing, mainstream Sunnis see IS as similarly crazy with the important exception of "well at least they're fighting the Shia". In other words, there is some tacit support for IS based on millennia-old factionalism, (edit: which is how they've grown from a small cult into a significant movement). An interesting point in the article is that while AQ can hide underground and never be fully eradicated, IS has to maintain land and provide government services under the caliphate to remain legitimate (according to the Koran, of course). This makes it an entirely different enemy that can, in theory, be destroyed. Further, no peace can ever be negotiated because the borders of IS have to keep expanding or the caliphate is no longer valid. That is, Muhammad says all non-believers have to be converted, full stop. Anyway, the article is outstanding. Take an hour to read the whole thing.

dingaling 11y ago
It does create a non sequitor in my mind that such cults are so implacably opposed to modernisation or adoption of contemporary culture, but will happily fire a captured M16 or fly an Mi-24 in support of their objectives...
- cholantesh 11y ago
  My understanding is that it's not modernization in that sense but re-interpretation of scripture.
jnbiche 11y ago
> Further, no peace can ever be negotiated because the borders of IS have to keep expanding or the caliphate is no longer valid. That is, Muhammad says all non-believers have to be converted, full stop. I think a lot of liberal media in the West tends to whitewash some of the, shall we say, more unpleasant actions of Islam's founder described in the Qu'ran (violence, child bride, etc). However, the assertion that Muhammad said that all non-believers must be converted is false, full stop. There is a very famous verse of the Quran addresses this categorically (in the words of Muhammed as supposedly dictated by God): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256 Indeed, the entire tax base of most Muslim empires, most notably the Ottoman, was based on taxing non-Muslims (Muslims were exempt from this tax, but had to serve in the military). So the rule against forcible conversions was not only stated clearly in the Qu'ran, but there have been unbroken enforcement of this rule by Muslim empires, kingdoms, and nations from Muhammed's time to the modern era, in a large part because of the incentives those entities had in keeping a large number of non-Muslims to tax. This is not to say that Muslims never forcibly converted people, but it is/was widely recognized as being forbidden by the Quran. Now, this is a separate matter from expanding borders. The Islamic State surely would love nothing more than to establish a caliphate at the farthest historical borders, so N. African up across Spain, Europe across the Balkans up to Vienna, and all of Central Asia. That said, I can't see them ever expanding beyond the Levant, even in the worst case scenario. Even without a massive Western ground intervention (which would obviously happen if they threatened Spain, if not before), IS would have to conquer Turkey and Iran, and that seems extraordinarily unlikely.

pomfia 11y ago

So this is Hacker News, is it ?

jospoortvliet 11y ago

aaand another article about what isis wants. How can they all be so conflicting? he Atlantic concludes that ISIS = Islam, while The Nation concludes that it's just another group of poor, abused people. http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/ http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-inte...

vixen99 11y ago

Attack the head and albeit slowly the body will wither. Starting point: is there a single person anywhere, with a shred of intellectual credibility, who supports ISIS? The negative answer should be used to publicly paint its followers as the intellectually barren though extremely dangerous barbarians that they are. No need to spell out why this does not happen though properly handled, I think it could.

_nedR 11y ago

Such a loaded article (Quote from article "The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. ") making its way to the top of Hacker news (which shuns political articles like the plague) is very troubling to me as a Muslim. Seems like the Muslims of 2015 are basically moving to the position of the Jews of 1915.

musha68k 11y ago
Thank you for your comment _nedR! I agree, the focus should be more on the potential perniciousness of unchecked religious fundamentalism in general (it doesn't matter if it's the KKK or ISIS) and middle-east history of the last 15-30 years in particular (why do some people fall for such simplistic, de-humanizing organizations)? ISIS is essentially a fascist movement and has as little to do with main-stream islamic values as the KKK has with christian ones. You might find this article on the "why" less simplistic: http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/ http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-inte... I think putting time and effort into these kinds of political and religious discussions is very important as long as we keep a cool and open mind - love and understanding against potential fear and hate towards "others" so to speak. Peace! :)
dragontamer 11y ago
I agree it is loaded, but after the Paris attacks, people are scared. So I hope you can be understanding at this time. I went to school with Muslims during 9/11 (not many, but enough that I listened to them). I understand the frustration in your religion being singled out, misinterpreted and so forth.
planck01 11y ago
>Seems like the Muslims of 2015 are basically moving to the position of the Jews of 1915. Except that the Jews of 1915 were not blowing up, mas-murdering nor terrorizing people, nor were they waging war on non-Jews. Also, Jews were prosecuted throughout the world and eventually deported and/or killed, while Muslims are not in any way. Concluding, it is not alike in any way.
- 11y ago

ssjava 11y ago

This article misses a major point, which is that there are many sects within Islam, the author (and non-Muslims in general) only know of or acknowledg Sunni vs Shiite, when in fact there more sects that claim to be Muslim than are in Christianity and Judaism combined. The one that ISIL, Al Qaeda, and almost all terrorist groups follow is called Wahhabism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism. To understand what this group preaches you need to know the history of the region. I'll spare the details and just mention that this group was supported by Muhamed bin Saud (the ruling family in Saudi Arsbia which the country is named after). Wahhabism preaches much of what this article describes in the senseless killing of hummens, which what bin Saud needed the justification for when killing the Muslims of the region while rising to power. They have many devious teachings with deeply rooted evil that true Islam rejects.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

Everyone is so caught up in the theological discussion I'm almost wondering if most posters read only half the article before commenting. In the end I think IS will fail, it's just a question of how and when. There was an article in the New York Times the other day that detailed how little room IS has left to expand without digging into Syria (and facing the Russians), or Turkey (which feels more threatened by the Kurds and uses the instability as a political smokescreen but has more than enough capacity to fight back), or pretty much anywhere else but pockets of Libya. Basically, they only formed and grew so prolifically because their enemies were exceptionally weak and unwilling to fight for sand dunes, let alone the ones that contain oil. I think the best way to deal with IS is to understand the historical and religious underpinnings to get a sense of why people flock to it, then divorce the religious aspect from the dangerous entity that follows the same rules of economics that everyone is a part of. Starve the state of revenue, undermine its ability to provide for its citizens, and make it clear to supporters of the Islamic State in the Middle East and elsewhere that IS cannot effectively function any better than a Tunisian democracy or an Egyptian dictatorship. Instead of baiting their desire for an apocalyptic conflagration, slowly drain their strength and appeal. Let supporters across the planet see a strict caliphate in action and how little it accomplishes adter the easy deserts have been claimed. A weak loser that doesn't go anywhere doesn't sound exactly like the fate chosen by God.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- dragontamer 11y ago
  As would any reasonable approach. Total War has not happened in nearly 80 years... during World War II. And without turning the situation into a "Total War", I find it hard to believe that any solution would take less than decades. One Hospital gets bombed in Afghanistan and everyone gets their panties in a twist. The modern world does not like seeing "mistakes of war", despite the fact that we in WW2 would send Japanese to internment camps and opened up the American office of censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship ISIS is the biggest threat against the Western World today, but does not draw enough bloodlust among the general population. We are too war weary from Iraq and Afghanistan to really commit to a true fight. And I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.

dang 11y ago

This article has been posted enough now: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=What%20ISIS%20Really%20Wants&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=What%20ISIS%20Really%20Wants&s... Indeed, by HN's criteria the current thread is a dupe. But we won't kill it, since discussion is ongoing.