Debate on Abrahamic Religions (split from Paris Attacks Thread)

[Ragusan North America]

ISIS-Islamic State in Iraq and Syria Even the name speaks forced religious conversion...

If you believe that, then I have a Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea to sell you...

[Alvecia]

ISIS-Islamic State in Iraq and Syria Even the name speaks forced religious conversion...

If you believe that, then I have a Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea to sell you...

The DPRK doesn't do everything it can to live up to it's name.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is called a duck, it's a duck

[Fascist Russian Empire]

ISIS was born out of a region where there is no nationalism, where the only real sense of identity that people have comes from their religion. This is important, because it's kinda hard to convince people to fight and die for you without some sort of grand idea for them to believe in. In Europe that used to be the divine right of kings; then the Enlightenment came and it turned into nationalism. In the Middle East where the geography is not conducive to stable kingdoms or nation-state formation, it was Islam and the idea of a caliphate. The ISIS leadership uses this idea to motivate its fighters; Al-Baghdadi himself might even believe it, but his leadership alone does not sufficiently explain ISIS's success. Saddam's secular generals are there, and in order to keep the men fighting they must go along with this vision, even if they don't really believe in it. To keep up the facade they do things in accordance with an extreme interpretation of Islam - even if they aren't fundamentalists themselves - because they want to rule the subsequent state.

So, the Islamic State's doctrines revolve around Islam, the Islamic State's leader is an Islamic zealot, the overwhelming majority of the Islamic State's soldiers are Islamic zealots, the basic principle behind the creation of the Islamic State was to build a new Caliphate (a very important religious and political concept throughout Islamic history); everything about the Islamic State totally revolves around Islam and adherence to Islam. Yet, in spite of all that evidence to point towards the IS being an Islamic theocracy, there is actually some mythological secularist ruling the Caliphate from the shadows who, despite maintaining the perfect image of a Mujahid, is actually a Ba'athist who couldn't care less about following Islamic teachings. Mmmhmm. It looks like an Islamic theocracy, it claims to be an Islamic theocracy, it exhibits all the behaviors that would be expected of an Islamic theocracy, its leader is a theocratic Islamist, but it's actually ruled from the shadows by secularists from Saddam Hussein's government. Right.

Call me a skeptic, but I find it a little doubtful that there are actually secularists at the helm of the Islamic State. And, even if it were true, what would it change? Would a single skeptic, or a handful of skeptics, holding leadership positions in the IS change the fact that the religion of Islam is responsible for the crimes perpetrated by them, and that Islam is the root cause of the violence being exported from the Middle East?

So basically, force Muslims to join them, and kill any non-Muslims to unite the world under the Muslim rule. This will be worse, as they won't support scientific development, and if they meet an alien, perhaps they will kill them off and then tried to invade them

You clearly know little or nothing about the orthodox Islamic teachings on how to deal with non-Muslims. Well, I could explain it myself, but I think Mohammad himself, as recorded in one of Sunni Islam's most trusted sources, would do a much better job.

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraida through his father that when the Messenger of Allah appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say:

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of the Muhajireen and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated. When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.

The Islamic position is not, and never has been, we're going to kill literally everyone else in the world! The Islamic position is to demand that you either convert to Islam or pay an extortionately large tax (called Jizya); if someone refuses to do either one of these, they are to be killed according to Islamic teachings. This is, more-or-less, the model that the Islamic State has been practicing, or, at least, professing to practice.

[The Alma Mater]

The Islamic position is not, and never has been, we're going to kill literally everyone else in the world! The Islamic position is to demand that you either convert to Islam or pay an extortionately large tax (called Jizya);

This applies to people living inside the Caliphate. When the world is divided into the Caliphate and everything outside it, where the outside is known to hate, despise and fear Islam, destroying the outside makes perfect sense.
That the Caliphate itself caused said hatred - well, that's a mere trifling detail that IS historians can easily make certain does not survive the centuries.

[Ragusan North America]

ISIS-Islamic State in Iraq and Syria Even the name speaks forced religious conversion...

If you believe that, then I have a Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea to sell you...

The DPRK doesn't do everything it can to live up to it's name.

How do you know? Maybe it simply can't democracy.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is called a duck, it's a duck

I disagree. Whether or not it's a duck is independent of your perception of it, or what anyone calls it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So, the Islamic State's doctrines revolve around Islam, the Islamic State's leader is an Islamic zealot, the overwhelming majority of the Islamic State's soldiers are Islamic zealots, the basic principle behind the creation of the Islamic State was to build a new Caliphate (a very important religious and political concept throughout Islamic history); everything about the Islamic State totally revolves around Islam and adherence to Islam. Yet, in spite of all that evidence to point towards the IS being an Islamic theocracy, there is actually some mythological secularist ruling the Caliphate from the shadows who, despite maintaining the perfect image of a Mujahid, is actually a Ba'athist who couldn't care less about following Islamic teachings. Mmmhmm. It looks like an Islamic theocracy, it claims to be an Islamic theocracy, it exhibits all the behaviors that would be expected of an Islamic theocracy, its leader is a theocratic Islamist, but it's actually ruled from the shadows by secularists from Saddam Hussein's government. Right.

That very well might be true actually, Saddam era intelligence officers and military officials were extremely important in setting up the operational structure of Daesh. Obviously this won't explain everything but it's certainly worth reading into.

[Herskerstad]

The Christian God is triune, the Muslim God is not.

Different deities.

There are unitarian Christians.

None of which I know hold to Islamic anthropology in regards to Allah, which is distinct from that of biblical anthropology.

Two distinct entities if we are to take either holy text at their word.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

That very well might be true actually, Saddam era intelligence officers and military officials were extremely important in setting up the operational structure of Daesh. Obviously this won't explain everything but it's certainly worth reading into.

Well, I suppose I stand corrected on some level; there are former Ba'athist figures involved with the Islamic State. Even so, the foundations of the Islamic State revolve around Islamism, not Ba'athism, and it would be incorrect to state that their organization exists to further some sort of Ba'athist agenda; the very large majority of people who join the Islamic State do so because they are Sunni zealots, not because they are Ba'athists, and the highest level leaders are well-established Sunni Islamists, many of whom (like al-Baghdadi) had no connection to Saddam's government. You could completely remove the remnants of Saddam's government from the equation, and the Islamic State would still exist, because its foundations are built around Islam, even if ex-Ba'athists hold some degree of influence in the organization. More importantly, the Islamic State commits so many atrocities because it is influenced so heavily by Islamic teachings, not because it was influenced by Saddam Hussein. Even if Ba'athists had an important role in setting up the Islamic State, there is little or no visible Ba'athist influence to be seen in the ideological doctrines and goals espoused by IS. The real problem is Islam; Islamic teachings are the reason so many people join IS and similar organizations, and why so many attacks are carried out by people sympathetic to them.

[Ragusan North America]

Call me a skeptic, but I find it a little doubtful that there are actually secularists at the helm of the Islamic State. And, even if it were true, what would it change?

Whoa, back up: I never said they were secularists, I said they were secular with the implication they were being opportunistic. They're not pushing a secular agenda here, they're just riding the wave of fundamentalism into power.

Would a single skeptic, or a handful of skeptics, holding leadership positions in the IS change the fact that the religion of Islam is responsible for the crimes perpetrated by them, and that Islam is the root cause of the violence being exported from the Middle East?

"Islam is the root cause of the violence being exported from the Middle East" No, that's disingenuous. Islam is certainly part of it - without Islam there would be no Jihad, no united front in ISIS, no sectarian conflict in Iraq to kick off this whole mess, and no Al-Qaeda to provoke the US. But it runs deeper than that - through Islam the people of the Middle East have a sense of identity, and hence of unity. Through this unity they have power - the last time they could truly self-determine was when the Middle East was united under the Ottoman Empire. And at the end of WWI Europe took that away from them. Since then it's been nothing but desecration - the military dictatorships holding the partition states together, the western-backed crusader state of Israel, western interventions and foreign-backed proxy wars, and poverty despite sitting atop the world's largest oil reserve. The last straw for ISIS was a western-installed democracy in Iraq that upset the previous Sunni dominance in the country. ISIS seeks to reestablish this dominance and exports terror to any western nation that tries to oppose it. Sure, it wouldn't exist without Islam, but then the peoples of the Middle East would be even more dysfunctional. They NEED Islam; what they DON'T need is western intervention. So to place the "Islam" half of the terrorism equation above the "Western intervention" half is wrong and destructive; if you don't like being the target of terrorism then YOU need to get the hell out of THEIR business.

[Xelsis]

intervention. So to place the "Islam" half of the terrorism equation above the "Western intervention" half is wrong and destructive; if you don't like being the target of terrorism then YOU need to get the hell out of THEIR business.

When "their business" is horrific human rights abuses up to the mass murder of their people with chemical weapons, then they have no right to it.

You're justify mass murder of civilian targets in the West because the West dared to say that the mass murder of the civilians of their own countries was not OK. That's despicable.

And no, the West is not the largest target of terrorism. That's still the Middle East, with slaughter by radical Muslims occurring all across the region.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

"Islam is the root cause of the violence being exported from the Middle East" No, that's disingenuous. Islam is certainly part of it - without Islam there would be no Jihad, no united front in ISIS, no sectarian conflict in Iraq to kick off this whole mess, and no Al-Qaeda to provoke the US. But it runs deeper than that - through Islam the people of the Middle East have a sense of identity, and hence of unity. Through this unity they have power - the last time they could truly self-determine was when the Middle East was united under the Ottoman Empire. And at the end of WWI Europe took that away from them. Since then it's been nothing but desecration - the military dictatorships holding the partition states together, the western-backed crusader state of Israel, western interventions and foreign-backed proxy wars, and poverty despite sitting atop the world's largest oil reserve. The last straw for ISIS was a western-installed democracy in Iraq that upset the previous Sunni dominance in the country. ISIS seeks to reestablish this dominance and exports terror to any western nation that tries to oppose it. Sure, it wouldn't exist without Islam, but then the peoples of the Middle East would be even more dysfunctional. They NEED Islam; what they DON'T need is western intervention. So to place the "Islam" half of the terrorism equation above the "Western intervention" half is wrong and destructive; if you don't like being the target of terrorism then YOU need to get the hell out of THEIR business.

You know, the Ottoman Empire was rife with constant discontent from its non-Turkish populations, especially among Arabs; the Arabs were so fanatically anti-Ottoman that they worked with the western powers during World War One to topple Ottoman rule.

If the Islamic identity was so empowering for the Middle East, and the Ottoman Caliphate brought such unity to the region, why were the Arabs so discontent with it that they revolted (on multiple occasions) to overthrow the Ottomans? Maybe it actually has something to do with the fact that the Arabs aren't just mindless caricatures who's entire personality revolves 100% around their religious identity, like you're trying to insinuate; if Arabs really did have literally no identity beyond being Muslims, most people would think they would have been a bit happier living under an Islamic Caliphate. You're completely dehumanizing the Arab population, and boiling them down to nothing but their religious affiliation; it's completely ludicrous to pretend that there are no facets of Arab culture other than Islam, Islam, Islam.

Beyond that, the semi-recent Arab Spring movements made it reasonably clear that there are, in fact, Arabs who don't want Islamic theocratic rule; Arabs who want to gravitate towards free, democratic societies, with identities beyond religion. I highly doubt those Arabs appreciate you claiming that there is literally no such thing as an Arab identity, implying that Arabs are nothing more than uncultured barbarians who have no individuality and are simply part of some sort of collective religious identity.

And, then, what about the non-Arabs in the Middle East? You know, like the Kurds, who care so much about their ethnic and cultural identity that they rise up in rebellion to try and create their own independent country? Do they just not exist in your mind, or do you just dehumanize them as well, boiling them down to nothing but their religious affiliation, pretending that there's nothing more to these people than just their religion?

And what about all the Arab Christians scattered throughout the Middle East? There are hundreds of thousands of them throughout the region; I guess they also "need" Islam, because all Arabs are Muslims and their identity revolves 100% around Islam according to you. And that's not even getting started on the Assyrians, and the other major Christian demographics throughout the Middle East; there are multiple ethic and cultural groups which are overwhelmingly Christian in the Middle East, yet you continue to pretend that Middle Eastern identities must be completely Islamic because supposedly that's literally the only identity that Middle Easterners have.

Maybe you should actually recognize the fact that Arabs are humans with individual personalities, instead of boiling them down to nothing more than the majority religion in the region. No, Arab identity doesn't revolve solely around Islam; it's fucking ludicrous to suggest it does, and it's an insult not only to the non-Muslim Arabs but to all the Arab secularists who have been striving for years to end Islamic theocracies and bring about free democratic societies. It isn't just totally fucking wrong, it's outright racist and dehumanizing.

Almost equally as ludicrous is the concept that Islamic militants are only waging war on the west because "evil western imperialism" drove them to do it. Groups like the Islamic State make it overwhelmingly clear that they are doing what they're doing out of religious zeal; they insist that they are following Islamic teachings. If the West and the small handful of wars it's waged on Middle Eastern dictators is the primary reason these people are following Islamic teachings, well, that Islamic faith which Middle Eastern culture totally NEEDS must not be that important in peoples' lives after all; I mean, if Arabs actually were mindless caricatures who's entire lives revolved around Islam, you would imagine they wouldn't need "evil imperialism" to inspire them to follow Islamic teachings.

Now, do you actually have any valid justifications of Islam, or are you just completely determined to attack the West and make us out to be the bad guys no matter what? Because, after all, victim-blaming is soooooo progressive; instead of actually wanting to do something about the people perpetrating violence, all you can think to do is say how westerners deserve to be the victims of terrorist attacks because "evil imperialism." What an absolute joke.

[Alvecia]

The DPRK doesn't do everything it can to live up to it's name.

How do you know? Maybe it simply can't democracy.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is called a duck, it's a duck

I disagree. Whether or not it's a duck is independent of your perception of it, or what anyone calls it.

Except it's not that we're hearing it quack. It is quacking.

[Ragusan North America]

When "their business" is horrific human rights abuses up to the mass murder of their people with chemical weapons, then they have no right to it.

The Assad regime is not the topic of discussion, it is terrorism; specifically terrorism directed against the West.

And no, the West is not the largest target of terrorism.

Never said it was. And again, not the topic of discussion.

You're justify mass murder of civilian targets in the West because the West dared to say that the mass murder of the civilians of their own countries was not OK.

I'm not justifying anything, and the West isn't the target of terrorism because of anything they "said". If you want to punish someone for human rights abuses then you need to go through the UN; if you can't get a resolution then you're SOL. Can I assume this ties back to ISIS, somehow? Operation Inherent Resolve is not a UN mission, it is a US mission comprised of NATO and other US allies. The US has no right to act unilaterally to punish state or non-state actors for human rights abuses against third parties; that is not the world we live in.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

God damn it Isis. What makes them think blowing people up and shooting people will make them want to convert to Islam? It just makes us all paranoid.

It's so immature, the terrorists are like, "Oh, these people don't agree with me. Well instead of bringing up evidence of my god's existence or showing people the good side of life in my religion, I'm going to kill and rape their people until they submit. Then everyone will like my opinion!" Do they not realize this is just making people afraid of their belief, and therefore as soon as they escape Isis controlled areas they will likely want to convert to something else?

Because ISIS sees kufr as enemies to God. Hence, they are not innocent, hence, they are legitimate targets.

They are the worst of scum imaginable.

Christianity and Islam believe in the same God, so muslims converting to that also kinda makes sense.

Allah says many things are okay that God says are not okay.

Care to elaborate?

[Salus Maior]

God damn it Isis. What makes them think blowing people up and shooting people will make them want to convert to Islam? It just makes us all paranoid.

It's so immature, the terrorists are like, "Oh, these people don't agree with me. Well instead of bringing up evidence of my god's existence or showing people the good side of life in my religion, I'm going to kill and rape their people until they submit. Then everyone will like my opinion!" Do they not realize this is just making people afraid of their belief, and therefore as soon as they escape Isis controlled areas they will likely want to convert to something else?

I feel like this is less about Abrahamic religions as a whole and more about Salafist Islam.

[The Alma Mater]

Christianity and Islam believe in the same God, so muslims converting to that also kinda makes sense.

No we don't.
Islam is like a spinoff of Christianity. Muslims believe Jesus was just a human prophet, we believe Jesus is the Son of God. The Bible says anyone who denies Jesus as the Son of God is an Anti Christ, so Christians view Muhammad as an Anti Christ while Muslims believe he was just a normal prophet who was spreading Allah's messages. Allah doesn't act like our version of God, Allah actually acts like Christianity's Satan to be honest. Allah says many things are okay that God says are not okay. Islam and Christianity have completely different views on God, hence why we technically do not have the same God and why the religions experience so much conflict.

Actually, the Quranic God behaves pretty much like the Talmud one. The New Testament one is the odd one out.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

God damn it Isis. What makes them think blowing people up and shooting people will make them want to convert to Islam? It just makes us all paranoid.

It's so immature, the terrorists are like, "Oh, these people don't agree with me. Well instead of bringing up evidence of my god's existence or showing people the good side of life in my religion, I'm going to kill and rape their people until they submit. Then everyone will like my opinion!" Do they not realize this is just making people afraid of their belief, and therefore as soon as they escape Isis controlled areas they will likely want to convert to something else?

I feel like this is less about Abrahamic religions as a whole and more about Salafist Islam.

To be honest, most terrorist attacks are done by Jihadist Salafis. And essentially those who do takfeer over other (non)-Muslims.

Funfact, A Muslim who calls another Muslim a kafr is a kafr himself.

[Salus Maior]

Um... this isn't what ISIS is about. ISIS is about political power and control of territory, not religious conversion. They may preach radical Islam/Wahhabism but the real brains behind the operation are Saddam's former Baathist generals, relatively secular people who just want power. ISIS would probably have nothing to do with France and other western powers if it weren't for the intervention against ISIS. All ISIS wants from France is for France to stay out of its business.

If that weren't the case they wouldn't be giving notices of "leave, convert, or die" to minority religion pops in their territory. Or force religious doctrine through their laws (such as enforcing that women must always be fully covered, and men must not shave their beards).

You have to be completely blind to not see the extreme religious slant to ISIS.

[Salus Maior]

To be honest, most terrorist attacks are done by Jihadist Salafis. And essentially those who do takfeer over other (non)-Muslims.

Funfact, A Muslim who calls another Muslim a kafr is a kafr himself.

Yes, I'm aware. It's annoying when the actions of such a sect is somehow blamed on the entire religion, and apparently every other religion with some relation to it.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

To be honest, most terrorist attacks are done by Jihadist Salafis. And essentially those who do takfeer over other (non)-Muslims.

Funfact, A Muslim who calls another Muslim a kafr is a kafr himself.

Yes, I'm aware. It's annoying when the actions of such a sect is somehow blamed on the entire religion, and apparently every other religion with some relation to it.

That's why we're here to spread that knowledge my Christian bro. Informing people, whether it be of Islam. Christianity, Judaism, so people might better understand.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

Actually, Jews and Christians use the same set of names for their God, (think Eloi, Jehovah, etc), which I'm fairly sure is different than the 99 that Muslims use.

We Muslims don't have 99 names for God, rather these are 99 Attributes to God.

God is God, simple. Even in Islam. Of course - when we refer to Islamic lectures and particularly in Arabic we say Allah, same as in our prayers.

Outside of that - it is perfectly fine to refer to Allah as God.

[Ragusan North America]

You know, the Ottoman Empire was rife with constant discontent from its non-Turkish populations, especially among Arabs; the Arabs were so fanatically anti-Ottoman that they worked with the western powers during World War One to topple Ottoman rule.

So this is true, and probably something I overlooked. But then your comment went to some dark places: accusing me of not recognizing the Arab identity, saying I view all Middle Easterners as one-dimensional Muslims and somehow this "dehumanizes" them, etc... Look, I don't mean to diminish ethnic and cultural identity or even PERSONAL identity when I say that people of the Middle East need Islam. What I'm saying is, in terms of political power, these things haven't gotten the Middle East very far in today's world. There hasn't been a pan-Arabic state yet and there probably never will be; sure there's an Arab League but the allegiances of its member states aren't always aligned. In fact, the closest we came to a pan-Arabian state was right after WWI, but at the last minute it was scuttled by the UK and France in favour of the partitions. In fact, it seems the Arab Revolt was not a secular nationalist movement but rather a pro-Caliphate, reactionary move against the Young Turk Revolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt

Almost equally as ludicrous is the concept that Islamic militants are only waging war on the west because "evil western imperialism" drove them to do it.

Okay, let's get something straight here: ISIS is not waging war on the West. The West is waging war on ISIS, and ISIS is responding by promoting terror attacks against Western countries that oppose it. If you'll notice, Western countries not actively opposing ISIS (e.g. Switzerland, the Latin American countries) are not targeted. Operation Inherent Resolve is a US-led coalition of NATO and other US allies acting unilaterally to preserve the political status quo in Iraq as well as rout ISIS in Syria. The former goal smacks of soft imperialism; the current Iraqi government is good for America and so it stays. Even if the US is acting with the best intentions, it has the capability to bend Iraq to its will if it wins. This is enough to drive some people to the terrorist's cause.

Because, after all, victim-blaming is soooooo progressive; instead of actually wanting to do something about the people perpetrating violence, all you can think to do is say how westerners deserve to be the victims of terrorist attacks because "evil imperialism."

This one, I will not dignify with a response.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

Except that ISIS claims that the West is corrupting the Muslims with Western thought, and hence the West will be targeted nevertheless.

You see, you went wrong in thinking that ISIS has contemporary Western thought. It does not. It rejects logic. It rejects anything you think it does. It is based on a cult of an insane man whom word is seen as the Word of God. It is 100% aimed at expanding the Caliphate and killing anyone who opposes it, including ideologically. If there is any power block I imagine being against ISIS in terms of ideology, it is the liberal West.

And ISIS is severely, severely different than most Muslims in the Middle East. You want proof?

Look at all the Arab/Kurdish/Iranian armies fighting against ISIS.

[Herskerstad]

Call me a skeptic, but I find it a little doubtful that there are actually secularists at the helm of the Islamic State. And, even if it were true, what would it change?

Whoa, back up: I never said they were secularists, I said they were secular with the implication they were being opportunistic. They're not pushing a secular agenda here, they're just riding the wave of fundamentalism into power.

Would a single skeptic, or a handful of skeptics, holding leadership positions in the IS change the fact that the religion of Islam is responsible for the crimes perpetrated by them, and that Islam is the root cause of the violence being exported from the Middle East?

"Islam is the root cause of the violence being exported from the Middle East" No, that's disingenuous. Islam is certainly part of it - without Islam there would be no Jihad, no united front in ISIS, no sectarian conflict in Iraq to kick off this whole mess, and no Al-Qaeda to provoke the US. But it runs deeper than that - through Islam the people of the Middle East have a sense of identity, and hence of unity. Through this unity they have power - the last time they could truly self-determine was when the Middle East was united under the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire which primarily was dominated by Turkish had deep fractured relations with the Levant, Egypt, and other areas of the middle east and these were conflicts internal to the empire within the larger Sunni community. There were provinces and dependent nations, also independent nations, regions with little to no oversight and then of course the greater issue of minorities and slave casts, who were even less a part of this unity to begin with and a good portion which historically was conquered subjects. The 'unity' of the Islamic world within the dying empire was not much of a unity at all, certainly no pan-Islamic consensus, the Ottomans had notoriously bad relations with Arabia itself and Egypt, as she often historically does, sought every chance to gain further autonomy or rid herself of said overlord which she at the cost of some territory long before WWII managed. The social contract in the Islamic world has for the most part been notoriously bad. The most unified time of the Islamic empire would probably have been under Uthman, and that certainly was not a happy unity for their subjects. It's not so much a case of the west somehow smashing the dying empire, it sealed that fate when it started to eat it's own and what was going to remain when the dust settled was never going to be the Ottoman empire, and should they get their caliphate which in some magical notion would gain unanimous Islamic support which simply never will happen, there is still the issue how that social contract will look given that it will inevitably regress from the nations that were formed in it's place, and the fact that said Caliphates are notoriously prone to expansion in the example of the early ones. At best a decentralised problem would become a centralised problem, but I suspect elements of both would remain.

Then there is the moral issue of having Muhammad, a seventh century warlord of extremely questionable ethics as the example of all mankind. This and the inevitable terror factions we suffer all over the world, as well as Jihad being the only guaranteed way to escape hell and enter paradise, will grant a significant appeal to acts of depravity that require little justification. Certainly the problems of the Islamic world is not merely limited to Islam, but in socio development it is all important to the ills the region suffer.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

Then there is the moral issue of having Muhammad, a seventh century warlord of extremely questionable ethics as the example of all mankind.

Many distinguised Western historians have denounced this myth-- foremost among whom is Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his book, "The Preaching of Islam". Also there is Marshall G. Hodgson in his book, "The Venture of Islam", Albert Hourani in his book, "A History of the Arab People", Ira Lapidus in his book, "History of Islamic Societies", L.S. Starorianos in his book, "A Global Hisotry, the Human Heritage"

This and the inevitable terror factions we suffer all over the world, as well as Jihad being the only guaranteed way to escape hell and enter paradise, will grant a significant appeal to acts of depravity that require little justification. Certainly the problems of the Islamic world is not merely limited to Islam, but in socio development it is all important to the ills the region suffer.

Jihad is the only garuanteed way to escape Hell and enter Paradise? Certainly not. I have yet to find a non-Salafi scholar who claims so.

Many scholars publicly denounced ISIS by the way