I really am no admirer of Islam, far from it! It makes some of the shit Joseph Smith came up with sound sane but I don't know if I can really agree with them saying it is based on "learned" (I suppose they mean most orthodox) interpretation of Islam.
Islamic state follows an apocalyptic variation of Salafism, essentially a Muslim version of American fundamentalism; where the Koran is top be taken absolutley literally as are a (more or less random) selection of hadith (sayings of the prophet, closer to Confucius quotes honestly). This isn't new, the Kajarites did this in the eight century and they were literally annihilated by the rest of them for being too aggressive. From then up until the 19th century Islam did fight, it did seek to expand it's border further into the "theater of war" (that is, non-Muslim states) but a good portion of this was done against other Muslims (who weren't to each other the right kind of Muslim) and a literal interpretation of the Koran on many topics was never taken that seriously, much like Catholics and Orthodox didn't and it only cropped up after the reformation.
In it's earliest days under the Calpihate (the first four specifically) I think a better comparison would actually be the LDS church and their leading Prophet. As much as the Popes do claim they've never actually claimed to be able to make shit up as they go along, something the Caliphate and Mormon Phrophets did and still do.
The Pope's may have had immense political power too, but their efforts were often thwarted by not having it directly in their own hands; they traditionally have had to bribe or bully the Kings of France, Austria or Spain to do their bidding, and they were activley hindered for a good 800 years by the Holy Roman Emperors who claimed divinely sanctioned temporal rule (and regually used it to slap down the Papacy, one of the biggest mistakes they ever made creating that office).
The Isis "Caliph" has the power directly in his hands, and diverges almost entirely from the most Historically popular Islamic theologies. He's less of a Pope 2.0 and a blatant cult leader in the truest sense of the word. He's closer to Jim Jones than Francis. Actually no, he's Jim Jones but with a fuckton more money.
Islamic state follows an apocalyptic variation of Salafism, essentially a Muslim version of American fundamentalism; where the Koran is top be taken absolutley literally as are a (more or less random) selection of hadith (sayings of the prophet, closer to Confucius quotes honestly). This isn't new, the Kajarites did this in the eight century and they were literally annihilated by the rest of them for being too aggressive. From then up until the 19th century Islam did fight, it did seek to expand it's border further into the "theater of war" (that is, non-Muslim states) but a good portion of this was done against other Muslims (who weren't to each other the right kind of Muslim) and a literal interpretation of the Koran on many topics was never taken that seriously, much like Catholics and Orthodox didn't and it only cropped up after the reformation.
In it's earliest days under the Calpihate (the first four specifically) I think a better comparison would actually be the LDS church and their leading Prophet. As much as the Popes do claim they've never actually claimed to be able to make shit up as they go along, something the Caliphate and Mormon Phrophets did and still do.
The Pope's may have had immense political power too, but their efforts were often thwarted by not having it directly in their own hands; they traditionally have had to bribe or bully the Kings of France, Austria or Spain to do their bidding, and they were activley hindered for a good 800 years by the Holy Roman Emperors who claimed divinely sanctioned temporal rule (and regually used it to slap down the Papacy, one of the biggest mistakes they ever made creating that office).
The Isis "Caliph" has the power directly in his hands, and diverges almost entirely from the most Historically popular Islamic theologies. He's less of a Pope 2.0 and a blatant cult leader in the truest sense of the word. He's closer to Jim Jones than Francis. Actually no, he's Jim Jones but with a fuckton more money.
