I think this is a fascinating observation. If we take the premise that there are certain common elements of creating an “Other,” such as the Other is violent, uncultured, superstitious/follows a false religion, irrational, and has poor gender roles, we can look at how the general is manifested in the specific intra-Muslim debates. I do wonder how much of what you outline here with respect to the Fatimids is really normal across the dynasties. It is as formulaic as the symbols of mystical poetry.

If Daesh is then inserting itself into the streams of cultural memory, if not scholastic traditionalism, then how they manifest this discourse can be instructive, especially if you believe that Daesh has more in common with post-Enlightenment notions of the nation and the use of violence than with historical models of Muslim rule.

I think this is a fascinating observation. If we take the premise that there are certain common elements of creating an “Other,” such as the Other is violent, uncultured, superstitious/follows a false religion, irrational, and has poor gender roles, we can look at how the general is manifested in the specific intra-Muslim debates. I do wonder how much of what you outline here with respect to the Fatimids is really normal across the dynasties. It is as formulaic as the symbols of mystical poetry.

If Daesh is then inserting itself into the streams of cultural memory, if not scholastic traditionalism, then how they manifest this discourse can be instructive, especially if you believe that Daesh has more in common with post-Enlightenment notions of the nation and the use of violence than with historical models of Muslim rule.