You didn't even understand what he wrote! The 'cancel culture' in Jihadist Groups represents a concrete and empirically evident reality, beacause aside from what he wrote, they use it as an instrument of indoctrination and recruitment. When one’s identity is erased, their sense of belonging is inevitably lost, and it is precisely at that point that they seek out their most vulnerable adherents, whom they often exploit as test subjects.
There is no inherent link between Western colonialism—whether historical or socio-economic—and Islam. Many of the regions affected by colonial expansion, such as South America, India, and large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, are not Muslim-majority societies. For this reason, introducing Islam into the discussion does not logically follow from the premise.
Moreover, the article in question focuses specifically on Jihadist groups dynamics: mechanisms of identity manipulation, throw cancel culture. It doesn't address colonialism or neo-colonialism, it doesn't discuss the Palestinian issue, and it doesn't examine religious conflicts. Therefore, providing a “general idea” that mixes all of these unrelated themes in this context results in a conceptual mismatch and obscures the actual subject of the article. In other words, you cannot respond to an article that deals with one precise topic by creating a broad and unfocused synthesis that conflates multiple, unrelated issues. Doing so produces a nonsensical combination of arguments that do not correspond to the content being discussed.
A lot of this destruction is framed as fighting ‘idolatry,’ but that’s mostly a political pretext. Mainstream Islamic scholarship has never required the demolition of pre-Islamic or non-worshipped heritage. Groups like ISIS and the Taliban use the language of purity to justify erasing identities, controlling memory, and asserting dominance. If the motive were truly theological, their behaviour would be consistent — but it isn’t. Iconoclasm here is about power, not piety.
You didn't even understand what he wrote! The 'cancel culture' in Jihadist Groups represents a concrete and empirically evident reality, beacause aside from what he wrote, they use it as an instrument of indoctrination and recruitment. When one’s identity is erased, their sense of belonging is inevitably lost, and it is precisely at that point that they seek out their most vulnerable adherents, whom they often exploit as test subjects.
It is clear that you have not understood the meaning of the analysis.
Furthermore, your rhetoric is outdated, redundant and superficial.
There is no inherent link between Western colonialism—whether historical or socio-economic—and Islam. Many of the regions affected by colonial expansion, such as South America, India, and large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, are not Muslim-majority societies. For this reason, introducing Islam into the discussion does not logically follow from the premise.
Moreover, the article in question focuses specifically on Jihadist groups dynamics: mechanisms of identity manipulation, throw cancel culture. It doesn't address colonialism or neo-colonialism, it doesn't discuss the Palestinian issue, and it doesn't examine religious conflicts. Therefore, providing a “general idea” that mixes all of these unrelated themes in this context results in a conceptual mismatch and obscures the actual subject of the article. In other words, you cannot respond to an article that deals with one precise topic by creating a broad and unfocused synthesis that conflates multiple, unrelated issues. Doing so produces a nonsensical combination of arguments that do not correspond to the content being discussed.
It is clear that you have not read the analysis.
A lot of this destruction is framed as fighting ‘idolatry,’ but that’s mostly a political pretext. Mainstream Islamic scholarship has never required the demolition of pre-Islamic or non-worshipped heritage. Groups like ISIS and the Taliban use the language of purity to justify erasing identities, controlling memory, and asserting dominance. If the motive were truly theological, their behaviour would be consistent — but it isn’t. Iconoclasm here is about power, not piety.