Hypothetical: What if ISIS makes a successful Caliphate?

[The Dharma Bum]

[Lobster]

[exploited]

[broken robot]

Ok, maybe I could use more specific historical examples, if that was my job, but part of what I do is develop an analytic framework to explain something. I give short examples that I think justify my points. They do all the necessary work, see my first post in the thread.

Again, my assertions may seem redundant or even tautological, but that's because they're actually very simple. If someone says they're doing something because of religion, do you just accept the justification they have given for their own actions? or do you try and develop a historical framework that looks at other factors including institutional and political economic relationships? Does "Islam" explain violence happening in the Middle East, or other historical factors of that particular region?

In many ways I think you guys are idealists in that regard, whereas I'm a materialist (not necessarily in the Marxist sense). All I'm saying is ideas don't explain history, or at least they don't matter unless there are effective means of social action to implement those ideas, keyword: "institutions."

So again, if we're to take all those wars that have been fought in the name of Islam, rather than looking at "Islam" as some idealist, essentialist, ahistorical category, I'd rather look at the thousands of historical variations and the ways in which Islam means different things to different people at different times and places.

Again, I presented some off-hand examples in my first post in the thread, refer back to them. If you disagree, say specifically what it is is wrong with my examples/evidence, something no one's done yet. That's perhaps why this discussion comes across as so vague.

[exploited]

Yeah, the sectarian conflicts in the ME have been about the same religious disputes for like a thousand years. Obviously you will see people with ulterior motives, and obviously all conflicts have multiple dimensions. This doesn't actually make any compelling argument against Comrade's assertion that Islam is the most violent religion in history, because it clearly is.

You haven't actually made any real argument about anything. You instead talk about institutions and other influences without mentioning what they are, how they apply to the point you are attempting to make, etc. Whereas all Comrade has to do is point out that religious authorities instructed religious people to attack other religious people on the grounds of religion. Which has happened dozens of times in Islamic history (major religious wars).

[broken robot]

[The Comrade]

[The Comrade]

[broken robot]

[The Comrade]

yes, because islam. or were the crucifixions not blunt enough?

why do transnational islamist organizations do what they do if it's not actually in regards to religion? can you tell me?

again, there is no solution. islam developed differently than christianity or hinduism did and until it evolves out of it's current trend of leading to extremism and violence there is very little to be done about it.