536 What ISIS really wants
Our government wants us to be scared. Because "they" are coming after us … (Ross Gittins has his own perspective on that.) ... OK, nobody denies the Islamic State gives us reason to be alert, very alert ... though - here in Australia - not all that scared (we have reason to be more scared about domestic violence, SMH). Discuss.
But what exactly is the Islamic State? Would it not be sensible to understand what they are all about, when developing a strategy to fight them? It's often claimed that IS is not Islamic; well, read on ...
What ISIS Really Wants is an article in The Atlantic. One of the myths writer Graeme Wood debunks right away most soberingly: Contrary to what moderate Muslims want us to believe, IS is religious ... in the extreme. Furthermore, they wish to lead the world into an apocalypse; the article does for some sobering reading:
Our ignorance of the Islamic State is in some ways understandable: It is a hermit kingdom; few have gone there and returned. The Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), follows a distinctive variety of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy, and can help the West know its enemy and predict its behaviour.
We have misunderstood the nature of the Islamic State … We are misled … by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature. There is a temptation to rehearse this observation - that jihadists are modern secular people, with modern political concerns, wearing medieval religious disguise - and make it fit the Islamic State.
In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.
The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its ardent followers derives from coherent and learned interpretations of Islam.
Centuries have passed since the wars of religion ceased in Europe, and since men stopped dying in large numbers because of arcane theological disputes. Hence, perhaps, the incredulity and denial with which Westerners have greeted news of the theology and practices of the Islamic State. Many refuse to believe that this group is as devout as it claims to be, or as backward-looking or apocalyptic as its actions and statements suggest.
Their skepticism is comprehensible. In the past, Westerners who accused Muslims of blindly following ancient scriptures came to deserved grief from academics - notably the late Edward Said - who pointed out that calling Muslims “ancient” was usually just another way to denigrate them. Look instead, these scholars urged, to the conditions in which these ideologies arose - the bad governance, the shifting social mores, the humiliation of living in lands valued only for their oil ...
Musa Cerantonio (picture above), an Australian preacher reported to be one of the Islamic State’s most influential recruiters, believes it is foretold that the caliphate will sack Istanbul before it is beaten back by an army led by the anti-Messiah, whose eventual death - when just a few thousand jihadists remain - will usher in the apocalypse.
Nice. Are they serious? You bet ... that's the problem. One of the things they are serious about which their ardent religiosity makes them believe, is that there is a heaven, they'll go there if they defend their idea of Islam and awaiting them are 72 virgins (houri); so death by fighting their holy war is preferable to life in this world.
This got me thinking. All that needs to be done is to tell Islamists convincingly they are delusional (all religions are delusional at their core) ... there is no God (we know that), and it follows there's no heaven, no afterlife, no 72 virgins. Problem solved.
OK, how do we do that?
The premise of this logic is that "there is no God, we know that." There are many reasons just why it is clear that there is no God, the most profound being that there is no proof. Religious people always counter at this point that God's existence is not an issue of proof or fact, but one of belief. Which of course is the crux of the matter: Believe as much as you want, in what you want. But whatever you believe, it never accounts for the existence of God as a reality, it just points to a (delusional) belief.
Interestingly, at this point another proposition often is put forward, where people say, "I know God is real, because I can see the good He does in people." This is a very pervasive argument, because it is obvious that a lot of good is being done by religious people (for now let's not dwell on the bad that is being done too); but this is the thing: The good done in the name of religion and/or God is not done by God (remember, there is no God, we know that) ... it is done by the belief in God. Believing in God compels many people to do good (just as it does compel people to do ... well, you know where I'm going with this). So this is the crux of the matter: There is no God, but the various beliefs in God shape our societies.
Think about it ... if there was a God, we would live in a radically different world. For a start, we would not have that division between believers of this or that religion, and there would not be the conflicts defined by that division; indeed, a God would not tolerate groups like IS. Their existence is proof God does not exist. The circle closes.
I have many essays on GOD, RELIGION and BELIEF in my book en.light.en.ment