
What ISIS Really Wants - vilda
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/?single_page=true
======
dang
This article has been posted enough now:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=What%20ISIS%20Really%20Wants&s...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=What%20ISIS%20Really%20Wants&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0)

Indeed, by HN's criteria the current thread is a dupe. But we won't kill it,
since discussion is ongoing.

------
rm_-rf_slash
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.

------
vowelless
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/wha...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/what-
muslims-really-want-isis-atlantic/386156/)

~~~
agarden
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.

~~~
kashifzaidi1
If you'd like to read how they are misinterpreting islam, here is the longer
version in the book : [http://www.amazon.com/No-god-but-God-
Evolution/dp/1400062136](http://www.amazon.com/No-god-but-God-
Evolution/dp/1400062136)

the gist is, They are interpreting things literally without any history and
context of what a verse of Quran meant and revealed for, one would argue that
should have been fine, but it isn't because it reduces islam to their
interpretation.

Arabic is a very diverse language, with tens of meanings for a word (often
contradictory) and which one you pick and choose depends upon what type of a
person you are, if you are a hate mongering terrorist, you would find those
meanings to justify your terror like isis is doing, if you are a peace loving
feminist, you would find plenty to justify that (using the same verses). This
would mean that their interpretation would depend alot on their socio economic
status, the kind of society they live in, the world view they have etc.

People often judge islam by the norms of 6th century arabia, Islam has a
evolutionary process in place called ijtihad, which the intolerant people
don't seem to use. But if you would have to judge islam, you would have to
either assume yourself to be in 6th century to see why they were relevant at
that time, or to remove them so to understand the general direction islam
gives.

~~~
dpark
> _If you 'd like to read how they are misinterpreting islam ... They are
> interpreting things literally_

That is an odd definition of "misinterpreting".

Biblical literalists are generally not accused of "misinterpreting" the
Christian Bible. They are commonly accused of being antiquated, crazy, or
dumb, but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because
they follow its literal meaning.

It similarly seems incorrect to say ISIS is "misinterpreting Islam" by reading
the Koran literally. It may not be the popular interpretation, and it may not
be a pleasant interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's an incorrect
interpretation.

Christian groups like to accuse each other of misinterpreting the Bible.
Church of Christ members say that Catholics have misinterpreted the
organization of the church. Catholics say that Baptists have misinterpreted
the apocalypse. Etc. These accusations in reality say very little about the
validity of the accused's interpretations, and merely serve as a way for the
accuser's to assert the correctness of their own interpretations. "Your
interpretation of the Bible is wrong" has no more validity than "Your choice
of religion is wrong" in general.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Biblical literalists are generally not accused of "misinterpreting" the
> Christian Bible.

Yes, they are. Particularly by other Christians.

> but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they
> follow its literal meaning.

No, its quite easy: outside of the context of religion, we see it all the time
when people are accused of misinterpreting something by treating either one-
off metaphors or colloquial figures of speech as if their meaning was what is
suggested by the literal meanings of the individual words. Or when one of many
possible literal meaning (words often have more than one nonfigurative
meaning) is chosen, despite the fact that the context (possibly very broad
context) suggests a different interpretation, whether a different literal
interpretation or a nonliteral one.

Its no harder to accuse people of misinterpretation for pursuing a particular
literal interpretation when the thing being misinterpreted is a religious
text.

~~~
dpark
> _Yes, they are. Particularly by other Christians._

You're making my point for me. Yes, some Christians accuse biblical
literalists of misinterpreting the Bible. But Christian groups frequently
assert that other Christian groups are wrong for many, many reasons. There's
generally little compelling reason to take any of them as "more correct",
though. It's just one group arguing that their religion is more correct than
someone else's religion. It's not one group interpreting correctly and the
other group misinterpreting. It's just two (or more) groups that disagree, and
they typically have no sound reason to assert their beliefs over others'.

> _No, its quite easy: outside of the context of religion..._

Sure, it's easy when you can provide a reason that the literal interpretation
is wrong. It's not easy when the reason is just that you don't like the
literal interpretation (or it's easy but not valid).

~~~
dragonwriter
> Sure, it's easy when you can provide a reason that the literal
> interpretation is wrong.

That's frequently the case with criticism of biblical literalism. While,
certainly, the people making the criticism have different interpretations that
they prefer as correct (that is, obviously, what it means to say that an
interpretation is wrong), and those that _care_ enough about an interpretation
to challenge another as incorrect are generally people for whom their
preferred interpretation is also an element of the their religious belief and
not just a more casual opinion, there are quite specific reasons given for
challenges both to specific literal interpretations and to the doctrine of
literalism itself (for the latter, the existence of flat-out contradictions
within the canon when interpreted literally is one of the more common.)

~~~
dpark
> _That 's frequently the case_

In my experience that is rarely the case. The reasons given are generally only
compelling to others who already hold the same beliefs. If you're arguing
against biblical literalism to others who consider the bible to be
metaphorical, you will of course be successful. If you're arguing with a
biblical literalist, you'll find that they fail to see the logic in your
arguments. If you're arguing with a non-Christian, they'll likely just not
care, but they might also find your arguments no more convincing than those of
the literalist.

> _for the latter, the existence of flat-out contradictions within the canon
> when interpreted literally is one of the more common._

This is only compelling if you start with the axiom that the bible (or
whatever text) is correct. If you start with that, and then add
contradictions, then the only way to resolve the discrepancy is to say that
the bible is metaphorical. If you don't take correctness as an axiom, it's
quite reasonable to say that the bible is mostly if not completely literal but
that parts of it are simply wrong. It's not a question of correctness of
interpretation, then, so much as a question of correctness of the canon.

~~~
dragonwriter
> This is only compelling if you start with the axiom that the bible (or
> whatever text) is correct.

Which would perhaps be a serious problem with criticizing biblical literalism
with that argument if the literalism being criticized ever failed to included
a strong form of inerrantism; since, as a doctrine, Biblical literalism is
_always_ tied to strong-form inerrantism (which _is_ the axiom that the Bible
is, in every particular, both moral and factual, correct), and subsidiary
doctrines on matters of fact and/or morals can only be derived from it through
its intersection with inerrantism, it really isn't a problem that challenges
to literalism rely on arguments that are valid in the presence of inerrantism.

> If you don't take correctness as an axiom

Without inerrantism, whether something is a correct or incorrect
interpretation of the Bible doesn't have any significance. Literalism or not
only has any meaning in the context of inerrantism.

~~~
dpark
Those are good points. I concede that arguments against literalism that rely
on one's belief can be useful and valid for believers. I'm not sure this is
sufficient to demonstrate that, e.g. ISIS's interpretation is any less correct
than other Muslim's though. When ISIS says the scriptures demand that
apostates be crucified, I'm not sure that it's sufficient to point to another
passage that says, hypothetically, to love everyone. You might argue that
these are in contradiction and therefore the crucifixion is metaphorical or
out of context, but they could as easily argue that the two are not in
conflict, or that the love part is the metaphor (or taken or of context).

------
fivedogit
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
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
My understanding is that it's not modernization in that sense but re-
interpretation of scripture.

------
japhyr
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
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
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.

~~~
vlehto
Personally I avoid talking about those mistakes because they were not my
mistakes. Nor mistakes of my country.

I have absolutely no qualms with Iran, and never had. You could call me
nationalist and cultural relativist. I really think any nation should have the
option of forming a state. While I really don't agree with some stuff
happening in Iran, it's really not my responsibility.

I think the best option would be to have the daesh to transform into Sunni
version of Iran. That's not going to fly because everybody is angry with them.
But that seems to be the only way how things could realistically settle down
in the long run.

------
ssjava
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.

------
vixen99
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.

------
jospoortvliet
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-
inte...](http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-
isis-prisoners/﻿)

------
_nedR
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.

~~~
planck01
>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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Except that the Jews of 1915 were not blowing up, mas-murdering nor
> terrorizing people, nor were they waging war on non-Jews.

Yeah, the rise in Zionist terrorism in Palestine was about 20 years after
that.

~~~
planck01
That is one similarity between Jews and Isis Muslims, they both claim a
country based on their religious texts.

I don't know what you try to frame as 'Zionist terrorism'. I am not a fan of
many Israeli actions, but as far as I know there were no structural attempts
of structurally terrorizing and brutalizing Palastinians by Israel that are in
any way similar to what we see Isis doing today.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I don't know what you try to frame as 'Zionist terrorism'.

Acts of terrorism, including deliberate bombings, gunning down of civilians,
etc., carried out by supporters of an independent Jewish state within what was
then Mandatory Palestine by groups such as Irgun (a direct linear ancestor of
the modern Likud Party.)

> I am not a fan of many Israeli actions, but as far as I know there were no
> structural attempts of structurally terrorizing and brutalizing Palastinians
> by Israel

Israel was largely built by people who engaged in terrorizing and brutalizing
Palestinians in the name of the goal of creating the State of Israel. (To be
fair, there was terrorism on both sides and organized terrorism on the Arab
side against the Jewish side started first. But if we accept that targeting
innocent civilians for terror is acceptable as long as someone did it to you
first, well, _most_ terrorist groups in history could point to someone who
they saw as terrorizing the population they purport to represent first, and
characterize their own terrorism as retribution against the group from which
those attacks came, and supporters and sympathizers.)

------
sparkzilla
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)

~~~
skywhopper
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
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
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
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.

~~~
ethbro
So, this is probably going to get touchy, but I think the more fundamental
issue is that religion, both from epistemological and functional perspectives
as a movement, is incompatible with democracy.

In the sense that one cannot simultaneously hold the following two sets of
beliefs:

Religion: knowledge by authority, submission to authority, authority by appeal
to ex-human grantor, otherwise ignorance until submission before authority

Democracy: knowledge by inalienable and intrinsic human nature, authority as
composed of the will of individuals, pluralism as a path to better decisions
for the whole society

I personally believe religion is a powerful force for good in the world. But,
if we're being really honest, a lot of times that's because of the stuff we're
leaving out or bending rather than the strict interpretation.

------
pomfia
So this is Hacker News, is it ?

