I think that term "fundamentally Islamic" is the tripping point. I understand how you read that, I guess I don't take it that literally. I guess my sense was the author was saying these beliefs come straight from the religion - there is nothing made up or mis-quoted or pulled from somewhere else. This is not a deception, it's straight from the Quran. What they perpetuate is that they have the "correct" interpretation and I think with religion the idea of a "correct interpretation" is very dubious. (Both the claim ISIS is making and some of the retorts against them make that mistake I'd say) Even in your article they don't deny the lines or texts or prophecies exist as stated....the retort is that the larger context down-plays them. Well, if you ignore the other context it doesn't look that way. It's akin to someone in Christianity emphasizing the crazy Leviticus stuff and ignoring anything Jesus does or says. It's still straight from Christianity, it's just an intentionally narrow reading. And to me that isn't interpretation, it's more like what I said before: exclusion. They are picking and choosing what they want and hoping that their emotion and passion lead others to buy into their more exclusive reading of the text. But it is, still, Islamic. And that's ok to acknowledge. Most Muslims can still reply that they enjoy the greater context of their religion that teaches something different than what ISIS preaches, but again, make no mistake that what ISIS preaches is straight from Islam. It's a tense line to draw in the sand, but it's important.