> In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims across the world and aspires to bring much of the Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its direct political control, beginning with territory in the Levant region, which includes Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and an area in southern Turkey that includes Hatay.
Not so much. You are using the definition from an article geared towards ousting extremists -- and therefore their definition is "extreme". An IS can very much-so be a legitimate non-extreme government. (albeit, different from what most of us would prefer as a government)
Well, there seems to be an unfortunate naming collision then, because Islamic State was already reserved for a type of government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state
My question would be -- why are people allowing them to call themselves "Islamic State" then? Why not just go on calling them ISIS or something that does not de-legitimize already existing and legitimate governments? I mean, people in this thread are already starting to jump on the band-wagon and label all "Islamic States" as extremists... when that is not the case.
I thought ISIS was another name for ISIL and changed their name recently to IS as part of their propaganda about a new caliphate? If not, then what is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_... The first sentence there says "The Islamic State (IS), formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is a jihadist group, widely regarded as a terrorist organisation."
Sounds pretty extreme to me.