3 ms·

I fail to understand their conclusion. IS is not an atavistic return to a primitive past because it's based on Wahhabism, an atavistic return to a primitive pas

I fail to understand their conclusion. IS is not an atavistic return to a primitive past because it's based on Wahhabism, an atavistic return to a primitive past? I also think she is severely underestimating their support in the ummah. It's easy to superficially condemn the destruction of museum pieces, because hey, museums are pretty neat and educational. But it's very hard to condemn on a deeper level IS' fight against idolatry when the prohibition on idolatry is such a central tenet of your faith, the Shahada.

mirimir 12y ago
I recommended it because it seems to cover the history well. It also seems to have less of an agenda than either <http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/> http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isi... or the Intercept's counter <https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/20/atlantic-defines-real-islam-says-isis/> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/20/atlantic-defin.... What's modern about ISIS, she argues, is mass killing. And then there's the GTA vibe, and the glamorization of mass killing. But destruction of idols is hardly unique. I do fear that the Wahhabis have gamed the Infidels well. They used their petrodollars to proselytize the ummah. Then they incited fear and loathing through terrorist attacks. They sucked the Neocons into invading Iraq, and creating the chaos needed for expansion. Time will tell.