Courtesy of the BBC, an explanation of why ISIS is un-Islamic. Because it's just like Mohammed.
More than 160 people are now known to have died in Sunday's appalling attack in Baghdad. It is just one of eight different attacks believed to have been carried out by the so-called Islamic State (IS) over the last month - the Muslim month of Ramadan.
In total, more than 300 people have died in such atrocities from Orlando to Dhaka to Istanbul.
IS is also suspected of being behind an attack on one of the holiest sites in Islam on Monday - the Prophet's Mosque in Medina, Saudi Arabia.
There is, as usual, no mention of the Ramadan Muslim terror attacks in Israel. Because Muslims and the BBC don't consider that terrorism. Not even to the extent of pretending to condemn it.
Ramadan is traditionally viewed as the most holy and spiritual month in the Islamic calendar, a time of penance and temperance.
...
Juxtaposed alongside that ascetic puritanism is the view of radicals who regard Ramadan as a month of conquest and plunder.
They believe it is an opportune moment to double down on their millenarian war against civilisation and therefore launch more attacks than normal.
Indeed, al-Qaeda's official chapter in Syria, the Nusra Front, recently described it as "a month of conquests."
...
Ordinary Muslims rightfully despair at these interpretations of jihad and its link to Ramadan.
For them it is a month of restraint and reflection - but such is the crisis of modern Islam that extremist interpretations of the same idea are almost wholly divorced from normative understandings.
To the radical mind, if additional prayer and alms giving is encouraged in Ramadan - then why not more bloodshed too?
Where would Muslims possibly have gotten this bizarre radical notion from?
The belief in Ramadan as a month of war comes from Islamic history itself.
The Prophet Muhammad waged his first jihad, known as the Battle of Badr, during Ramadan in 624.
Eight years later he also conquered Mecca during the month of Ramadan, thereby claiming the city which houses one of Islam's most holy sites today: the Kaaba.
So was Mohammed a radical and an extremist? Apparently he was.
The attack on the Prophet's tomb caused shock across the Islamic world - raising the question of why IS might chose to bomb the burial site of Islam's most central figure?
IS adopts an ultra-literal and puritanical form of Islam that - contrary to most Muslims - believes the Prophet's Mosque is actually a shrine, because the Prophet is buried within its confines. As a result, they regard it as distracting people from the worship of God alone and believe the site should be demolished.
Where would the Islamic State possibly have gotten such an idea from?
Maybe the Saudis? Wahhabism began destroying various Islamic shrines in Saudi Arabia associated with Mohammed from the very beginning. The Saudi government is doing it today in its role as custodian. So ISIS is as radical and extreme as... Saudi Arabia.