Ludwig Whitby wrote:Well, I've got a slightly different take on this.I think that ISIS has a modern ideology inspired in part by the modern Western ideologies.
Nationalism, which originated in Western Europe isn't compatible with Islam, per se. According to Islam, all Muslims (if we disregard different denominations) are brothers. All Muslims are one nation. Accepting Western nationalism meant fighting Islam, reducing its power. Some countries, like Turkey, have managed to achieve that. But why should Muslims accept Western nationalism? Seriously, why?
Why not adjust it to their civilization? If there is only one nation, the nation of Islam, why shouldn't nationalists in Islamic countries be Islamists? This is exactly what ISIS is doing. They have accepted European totalitarianism, fascism and nationalism and made them islamic! This is not a throwback to the European Middle Ages, it is a throwback to the European 20th century! Which wasn't that long ago, actually...(Don't click the following links!) Genocide, public executions and fighting against women's liberation all happened in the civilized Central Europe less than a 100 years ago.
And just like fascists and nazists were popular in their time because they brought law and order to their countries and a newfound pride and meaning to their population, I'm afraid that ISIS can also achieve a considerable popularity, actually. That is what makes them most dangerous. The Iranian Islamic Revolution failed to send shockwaves around the world because its leaders were Shia, the minority within the Islamic World. What about an Islamic Revolution carried out by Sunnis? Arabs no less! The future of Islam is as uncertain as ever.
Babelfish wrote:Of course totalitarian regimes in the 20th century also controlled their subjects with violence and crashed all opposition, but I don't remember something equivalent to executing people for not praying 5 times a day or not growing their beard long enough
Babelfish wrote:There is some difference though IMHO, in that ISIS imposes its specific interpretation of Islam on its subjects with such harsh violence, which is already making it an enemy in the eyes of many Muslims - in principle, everyone belonging to a different sect or just less devout (not to mention non-Muslims of course)... Of course totalitarian regimes in the 20th century also controlled their subjects with violence and crashed all opposition, but I don't remember something equivalent to executing people for not praying 5 times a day or not growing their beard long enough, like under ISIS as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan at the time or the Islamic Courts in Somalis. I'm not saying either of these is better than the other, just that this kind of Islamic rule aims to control every aspect of daily life, much more strongly than the totalitarian European regimes.
Varislintu wrote:Minus the super-sarcastic tone about """"civilised"""" Europe.
Varislintu wrote:I just can't help wondering how bad the muslims that left Finland to fight for ISIS must have perceived their existense here if a fundamentalist religious state seemed like a brilliant affair to them.
Or is it that they somehow thought they would themselves be so privileged in that system (for example male, correct ethnicity, true believers, truly pious) that they would themselves never be punished by that system?
Hit the spot!languagepotato wrote:for me, these nutjobs stand to islam how the kkk stands to christianity
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest