In some ways, it’s futile to discuss what ISIS destroyed, who they killed, and all the other atrocities carried out by their extremist branch. These actions are only symptomatic. I’m not saying that they should be ignored; symptoms are mostly prime reflections of causal factors. I do however find it difficult to understand why ideology and, by extension, psychology get overlooked through acknowledging moderatism. After all, moderatism only exists in comparison to the very real state of extremism. This cannot be argued, as it’s happening all over the world as we speak and has happened throughout history. No, this doesn’t mean that every moderately religious person will sink into extremism or commit some heinous crime. This simply means that there are no clear lines among “moderatism”, “conservatism”, “fundamentalism”, “fanaticism”, “extremism”, etc. as these terms relate to ideological doctrine.

Lone wolf attacks are very few, as we would statistically admit, and they involve, among other considerations, the psychological state of the attackers. It’s important to look at every aspect of these attacks, however, there is a liberal tendency to cite “mental illness” as the leading cause of “terrorism” or more specifically, lone wolf attacks. This is a foolish path to follow. It’s as if, yet again, religion has gotten off the hook, simply for being religion and now the “mentally ill” are prime dumping ground for blame. If people who suffer from mental illness are so inclined, we would have seen many more attacks. Furthermore, would we expect these attacks to be held isolated from extremist propaganda? We seem to be wanting it both ways; to protect religious ideology at the cost of people with mental illness.

Now, if it’s not the “mentally ill”, it’s disaffected youth. Again, all factors must be considered, but why is the commonality of religious belief being swept under the rug? Why are the well crafted and intensely deliberate campaigns of extremist groups, such as ISIS, being ignored? Compared to local gangs and thugs, groups like ISIS enjoy international reach, access to vast stores of wealth and raw materials and, a slew of professionals and experts in everything from accounting to theology (they even have a strategic hold on two cities). This access may not be the holy grail of running an extremist group, but the Quran is. ISIS enjoys a mission backed by the eternal creator of the known universe and His holy word. Added to that, the prophet Muhammad and the Hadith serve as ways of living and conquering (as interpreted).

At the risk of generalizing, Islam numbers at 1.5 billion followers. Ironically, this mostly peaceful following lends credence to the extremist cause and, in the minds of extremists, the idea that they are even more puritanical. For naysayers, who insist that these extremists are “not Islam”, one could ask, “what would extremist Islam look like then?” One could even canvas the question to all religions with extremist followings. Time and time again, Islam and the regressive left chose to either ignore, or obscure the definitions and understanding to deflect the obvious link with religion.

Religion in general needs to be called out for what it is. I have noticed a peculiar habit when talking to moderate religious adherents which should not be construed as a psychological study, but simply as something I’ve noticed. When faced with simple atheistic logic, a moderately religious person seems to cling harder to religious dogma. This looking to religion for rationality needs to end.

Khalid.