What will the practice of Islam be like after ISIS?
To what extent has the behaviour of ISIS attached a collective guilt to the Muslim community, similar to German collective guilt?
What actions would it take on the part of ISIS to ruin the reputation of Islam altogether such that denials of association between ISIS and Islam by Muslims are implausible even to the Muslim community?
Other urls found in this thread:
25 years rule.
ISIS is Islam.
Same as it was in 683, 762, 1473 or in 2016.
Arab secularism is literally the answer to almost all of the Arab world's problems.
ISIT
>What will the practice of Islam be like after ISIS?
A revival of actually traditional Islam. That is:
>To what extent has the behaviour of ISIS attached a collective guilt to the Muslim community, similar to German collective guilt?
I'd say not similar at all because ISIS and groups like it have no official authority or legitimacy, whereas the Third Reich was a legitimate modern government that also happened to be bat shit insane.
>What actions would it take on the part of ISIS to ruin the reputation of Islam altogether
It would have to actually become a state, first, and Muslims would have to support it in vast majority. Again the difference with the TR is that the Nazi party's takeover was welcomed by the majority, as were their actions. It was only after they lost that Germans suddenly "didn't know what was going on" with deathcamps, etc. The only way for ISIS to achieve this would be to, again, actually create a state and not just a militant movement. Unfortunately for them it's materialistically impossible.
Hard to be secular when a foreign-funded religious zealot toting an AK wants to know if he can hide out at your place.
This, plus pan-arabic nationalism.
>That is:
Shit. That is: a turning away from the reactionary ideologies of the 20th century, including Arab secularism, and looking to the cosmopolitan past, while not romanticizing it. Ironically the extremist Salafist/Wahhabist phenomenon could create a path moving beyond the modern Sunni-Shi`i divide, and fundamentalism/tribalism in general. There are two big obstacles though.
1) The United States.
2) Monarchy.
... You mean Israelis?
Nothing will change most muslims don't see ISIS as a representation of them.
t. muslim
this pretty much
same shit with Al-Qaeda and Taliban anyway. Sunni's don't consider Shi'ites as "true" muslims as well, so why would they feel tied ideologically to ISIS?
Or literally any other paramilitary force in the area including ISIS and the Kurds.
Nothing good can happen with local, Arabic Islam until it, and all that is affiliated with it in the middle east, stops being a literal battleground for outside forces to fuck with each other indirectly.
This.
Also the vast majority of ISIS' victims are other muslims, /pol/cucks are delusional.
They tried that and it failed miserably, opening the door for shitty Islamism.
Define "outside forces". Israelis? Turks? Persians? Russkies? We're dealing with fyndamentally tribal, fractured societies and I think its naive to think they'll just work out their issues if we leave them alone (though I admit it wouldn't hurt).
I agree. I think many of their tensions exist regardless of outside influence.
But arming them and escalating their conflics through ulterior, geopolitical motives does not foster an environment for trust, economic stability, religious solidarity, or any sort peaceful resolution.
To be fair a large portion of that failure is attributable to Western intervention (again).
ISIS is incredibly insignificant within the context of Islam and Islamic history, theology, and thought.
ISIS are literally Sunni mega-autists who are killing everyone and anyone who doesn't follow their specific brand of Sunni Islam.
So naturally most of their victims are Shi'ite Muslims, traditional ("taqliidi") Sunnis, members of quasi-Islamic 'cults' (Yazidis, Alawis, etc), and the occasional unlucky Christian who crosses their path in Syria or Iraq.
And naturally that alienates like 99.999% of the Muslim world, even hardcore Sunni fundamentalists like the Taliban or the Sheikhs in Riyadh or Peshawar.
Pretty much this.
GINYU FORCE ASSEMBLE!
islam is not a country
ISIS is to an extent something like the 30 years war was to Christianity. It's the battle between an extreme form of traditional Islam, and modernising "western" Islam. I remind you for a moment to remember that the people fighting against ISIS are Muslims.
If ISIS loses, and it looks like they will, Islam and Muslims will try to distance themselves from radicalisation, as the majority of the normal humans who are Muslims already try to do, but there will be even more Stigma, the radicals will have lost, they will have nothing, they are old hat.
If ISIS win somehow, then we'd see a rise in radicalism but a further increasing divide, probably leading to even more conflict until one side ultimately dominates.
Of course its not so simple as that, theres an endless amount of politics invovled in it all, but so did the 30 years war.
Pannationalism already creates friction in europe, why cant you just stick to smaller nationstates before you try such experiments?
>Sunni's don't consider Shi'ites as "true" muslims as well, so why would they feel tied ideologically to ISIS?
Because ISIS is super sunni.
> victims are other muslims
You mean not true muslims because they arent pious enough, dont you`?
> they will have nothing, they are old hat.
Eh, they have plenty of radicalised youth, this is only the beginning, expect lots of fun in the 30s when the effects of overpopulation in the thirdworld become more apparent.
If the current youth around 10-12 doesnt takes up arms later on, consider Islam to be pacified for some time, I dont think so however.
If ISIS lose they will become disillusioned. ISIS is the ugly head of the last 20 years of increasing radicalisation.
I simply dont think so.
ISIS is the prepped up scum that cropped to syria's power vaccum, it can and will happen again wherever a state fails.
There are lots of symphatizers who havnt reached maturity yet and Saudi Arabia still lives to spread the funding of Wahhabi influence.
We'll see in a decade.
*scum from all of the islamic world
There will be a bigger more outspoken backlash against ISIS types if they lose from the Muslims who for now don't take sides or keep quiet. It will become much more publicly acceptable to speak out against it in the radical Muslim neighbourhoods once they lose. In my experience of living in a Muslim country for a while, they do seem to somehow segregate themselves.
The 30 years war had nothing to do with a battle of extremism against laicity.
nothing will really change until Salafist Saudi Arabia and Shi'ite Iran find a way to overcome their differences, stop their retarded pissing contest, and finally kiss and make up.
every 'radical Islamist' bullshit you have seen in modern times (ISIS, AQ, Hezbollah, Islamist 'rebels' popping up everywhere, chaos in Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, Iraq, and Syria) is more or less due to the Middle Eastern "Cold War" between Iran and Saudi Arabia that started in 1979 and how both sides fund and arm proxies in other Muslim nations to gain the upper hand (for example: Saudis in Pakistan, Iranians in Yemen).
It was a religious schism which had been brewing for almost a century which resulted in the division of the faith after a long, blood and extremely brutal war.
The faith was divided almost century before the war. The war started as a calvinist uprising and the big lutheran princes joined the catholic emperor to crush it. They only changed sides when "invited" to do so by the swedish army marching into their lands. Should I mention that the swedish king was invading because a catholic cardinal was paying him to do so? The same cardinal that had payed the king of Denmark too. By the way, most lutheran princes joined the emperor again when the swedish king was killed and the swedes lost momentum.
There's no ISIS or anything similar in the 30 years war.
Oh get the fuck out, you know exactly what I mean. If you want to live in your fantasy world go ahead just stay in your containment pen.
The Saudis have sponsored and harbored radical militants for decades, but as an export product to stabilize the state rather than openly selling it as a state brand of Islamism like Iran did in 1979.
While the ideology behind ISIS and AQ originated in the gulf states along with many of their militants, they have left alone or been dissuaded from taking full control in their host countries for several reasons. The biggest reason is its much easier for the Gulf monarchies to use of them as a tool in a proxy war with Iran than to risk a revolution at home. If ISIS/AQ were to turn on the Saudi monarchy - which they have no religious or material obligations NOT TO - it would be worse than 1979, as the ingredients for popular Salafist support are already there with a Sunni majority.
Next biggest reason is oil money. As long as the Gulf states can stay wealthy, the socioeconomic unrest which propels Islamist extremism is minimized. A rich, stable state can keep its bigots in line and out of the heads of the common folk.
Thirdly, ISIS/AQ wants to win over Sunnis everywhere, and no other state is more representative of Sunni religious authority than the Gulf. Notice how ISIS has only taken root in countries where there exists sectarian divisions like in Syria and Iraq. ISIS wins support by making the Sunnis feel vulnerable in the sectarian conflicts they help inflame and instigate. In the case of Syria, Assad's repression fed into ISIS/AQ's desired narrative, which was reinforced when the Gulf lended support for "moderate" groups who found greater safety with ISIS than with the FSA.
Iran's involvement with Hezbollah, functioning as a counter-revolutionary islamist group, makes it very difficult for the Gulf states to back out. Iran had started the trend of state sponsored Islamism, and the presence of Hezbollah in Sunni turf is turning sponsorship into full blown sectarian conflict and proxy war.
RELIGION
I think that if we opened the gates to humour and satire and hard-headed criticism - books, plays, cartoons, political commentary - then Islam would start to lose some of the awesome, mysterious, and entirely undeserved 'respect' it has accrued at gunpoint. Then - hopefully - people in 40 or 50 years can live in the same rational, secular environment that we were lucky to be born into.
>There's no ISIS or anything similar in the 30 years war.
Besides the Anabaptists at Münster that is.
>What will the practice of Islam be like after ISIS?
exactly the same, jihad never changes
>after ISIS
Yea it worked out well for Iraq.
It did until the US went in and ruined the party. Just like they did with Mossadegh in Iran.
Well, they were not really a power of their own to be taken in account. What makes ISIS special is not how fanatic or retarded they are but their ability to be all this and also big, seductive and relatively successful.
ISIS, like almost all other muslim insurgent/terror groups. Is just a proxy for Saudi and Gulf Sunni Arabs. Their goal with such groups is to spread their hardline Wahhabi islam to the rest of the islamic world and then into other parts of the world.