It took me much longer than I thought to finish reading OP's article... But I really wanted to understand ISIS's motivations, and I really wanted to complete this thread, so I've been constantly coming back to read a little bit more every day. I thought Wood's article was a fantastic read, very thorough, and I commend his ability to sit down with ISIS sympathizers and be able to have a decent conversation about their beliefs. I've seen, since this article was posted, that many people have responded across the internet with their own reactions and rebuttals to Wood's article, and I'm excited to read what other people think about his interpretation of ISIS's philosophy and religious doctrine.

To respond to you directly, I disagree that your and OP's links are complete opposites. And I'll throw a caveat out there - admittedly, my reading of the "Letter" was piecemeal, because I'm afraid I just don't know enough about Islam or the Quran to understand a lot of what the scholars are asserting. (I already learned quite a lot from Wood's article about what a caliph even is. If that gives you an idea of my starting point...) But if you'll suffer me to make a top-level observation: Your "Letter" link is very minutely picking apart how ISIS is not as fundamentalist as it seems, and that it actually has a lot of its doctrinal interpretations incorrect. And I think that agrees with Wood's overall point. Wood makes the case that ISIS is fundamentalist, in that it follows the Quran to the absolute letter - even embracing some of the more archaic concepts. But he also admits that ISIS's interpretation of the Quran necessarily leaves out what scholars have learned or how they have adapted throughout the years; for example, from Wood's article: "that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture." (Which I think is hilarious.) Even ISIS's understanding of a caliphate - the fundamental core, it seems, of ISIS's philosophy and motivations - has caused scholars to cringe; at the very least, the majority of Muslims around the world need to acknowledge the legitimacy of the caliph, and that obviously isn't happening. But from my (admittedly, limited) understanding of the caliphate concept, there is no verse in the Quran or the Hadith that specifies exactly how, or under what circumstances a caliph may be appointed? (Not to the detail that ISIS have taken it, anyway.) That that is an interpretation that scholars have gleaned from their reading of the Quran; this idea that caliphs must have territorial authority ('amr, Wood provided), as well as other ideas like physical integrity, mental integrity, etc. (I may be wrong - and I would be happy to be corrected on this point.) So it's my understanding that the fundamental problem here is not the following (or mis-following) of Islam, but the different interpretations disagreeing with each other. One, modern Islam, is more well-rounded, more learnèd, and more loving; the other, ISIS's Islam, is an attempt to reach back to "Muhammed's" Islam, disregarding completely the context of modern day society - the acception of slavery, the ruthless expansion of the caliphate, the focus on the "impending" apocalyptic battle between Dabiq and "Rome." (A third, Quietist Salafis, are constantly trying to determine what is halal and what is not, a fourth... a fifth... So many interpretations, just like in all other religions!) So while modern scholars disagree that overall, ISIS's Islam is a mis-representation of Islam (and that they're all terrible people, religious interpretation be damned), I think Wood is correct in saying that ISIS's philosophy comes from fundamental (in the sense of ancient, original, primitive) tenets of Islam, that ISIS is not developing from a vacuum, but from a basic, yet twisted, interpretation of the Quran.

I think the most important thing I learned from Wood's article is the concept of "offensive jihad," the "necessary expansion of the caliphate, and the state's "obligation to terrorize its enemies—a holy order to scare the shit out of them with beheadings and crucifixions and enslavement of women and children, because doing so hastens victory and avoids prolonged conflict." Because regardless of whether ISIS's interpretation of the Quran is baseless, or correct, or whatever - this helps me understand what ISIS has in mind when it does what it does, and gives me more of a perspective on their ruthless and violent acts. Which is all I really wanted from this article.

Anyway, thank you again for your "Letter" link - it was refreshing to see so many scholars banding together and talking intelligently about their beliefs, and this whole process was very educational for me.