Is ISIS Islamic?

[gsa]

A few months ago, Graeme Wood sparked controversy when the Atlantic published his essay, "What ISIS Really Wants." Wood's article was controversial because he disputed the claim that ISIS was inauthentic or "un-Islamic" as so many had claimed while the group laid waste to Syria and Iraq. Writing for ThinkProgress in September of 2014, Igor Volsky and Jack Jenkins pointed to the many Muslims and Islamic groups that had criticized ISIS. They assumed that rape and sexual slavery, for example, were clearly inconsistent with Islam. ISIS was revisionist and ahistorical, the product of pragmatic political demands as opposed to religious belief.

Wood's article provided a strong counterargument, one that Jenkins was unable to fully respond to when he interviewed one of the experts Wood cited in his piece. Jenkins also suggested , through alternative experts, that ISIS was misappropriating Islam and that the existence of Muslims condemning ISIS demonstrated that the group was in some way inauthentic. More importantly, it was dangerous, and risked validating the claims of ISIS.

In the case of the criticism of Wood’s article, the counterpoint appears to be that Islam is a diverse religion with many different interpretations. And that is certainly true, but doesn’t that suggest that it is a tradition that can make room for ISIS? And even if the religious motivations are illegitimate, that does not make them inauthentic. ISIS may be the byproduct of a particular time and a particular set of circumstances, but this concession does not suggest ISIS is a nihilistic death cult full of psychopathic murderers.

 

[psychoslice]

They like to think they are but their not, they take a verse here and there and put their own evil interpretation to them..

 

[gsa]

They like to think they are but their not, they take a verse here and there and put their own evil interpretation to them..

What verses do they interpret in an evil way?

Sexual slavery perhaps? Islamic:

The phrase “and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you” [al-Ahzaab 33:50] means, it is permissible for you take concubines from among those whom you seized as war booty. He took possession of Safiyyah and Juwayriyah and he freed them and married them; he took possession of Rayhaanah bint Sham’oon al-Nadariyyah and Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibraaheem (peace be upon them both), and they were among his concubines, may Allaah be pleased with them both.

Crucifixion? Islamic:

Hiraabah is one of the most serious of major sins, and it is forbidden according to the Qur’aan, the Sunnah and ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus).

Qur’aan: The Qur’aan says (interpretation of the meaning): “The recompense of those who wage war against Allaah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. Except for those who (having fled away and then) come back (as Muslims) with repentance before they fall into your power; in that case, know that Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [al-Maa’idah 5:33]

I mean I don't know what to say, there is no evidence that these practices are prohibited in Islam. They disagree less with the interpretation that these are permissible punishments than with the application of those punishments by ISIS. But that makes Islamic State un-Islamic? Because they decided that the intervening period of time corrupted Islam and want to revive the original practices? I don't see why that makes sense.

 

[psychoslice]

I think the only thing that would make sense to theses evil people is one big bomb dropped right on top of them.

 

[columbus]

Because they decided that the intervening period of time corrupted Islam and want to revive the original practices? I don't see why that makes sense.

I'm looking forward to some Muslim's opinions on this.
Since I first started learning about ISIS, they struck me as ultraconservative Muslims. They're doing things Muhammad's way, but in the 21st century. Intel is more sophisticated, weapons are more sophisticated, propaganda is more sophisticated, but the methods and goals are the same. And if they are successful a century or so will polish away the crimes.
Tom

 

[Moishe3rd]

Brilliant article in the Atlantic. And, wrong.
I have read many brilliant well researched articles on ISIS and radical Islam in general. The problem with all of the authors thus far is that they take the recent events of the last 10 or 20 or 30 years as indicative of the direction that Islam should or shouldn't; is or isn't - going.
History says they are wrong.
Islam is no different from any other religion or culture that has existed in history.
The Saudis took 300 years to establish their heretical version of Sunni Islam, Wahhabism, as the mainstream Sunni religion. They rose to power in the same manner as ISIS is attempting now - in the last 300 years, the tribe of al Saud sacked and looted and destroyed Mecca at least three times and murdered countless other Arab Muslims (and miscellaneous Jews and Christians etc.) in their quest for dominance.

ISIS is just another faction that seeks dominance. As does the Muslim Brotherhood; Hamas; Boko Haram; Al Qaeda; the Taliban; Pakistan's ISI; Sudan's National Islamic Front; Fatah; Iran's Vilayat al Fiqh or any of the other factions of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage.
This IS the Muslim Reformation. Eventually, they will destroy each other; or destroy the world; or the world will destroy them and, a new "kinder, gentler" Islam will arise from the ashes.
Just as a new way of life for Jews arose from the ashes of their Reformation of 2,000 years ago when they destroyed their world.
Just as a new Christianity arose from the ashes of the European Christian Reformation of 500 years ago after they destroyed their world.

"Authentic Islam" is whatever Islam is dominant at a particular point in history.
Up until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, head cutting; rape; pillage; torture; and barbarism was not a way of life for the majority of Muslims on planet Earth. When it did arise, it was either as a result of war or - the Empire crushed such independent factions that reveled in blood.

 

[psychoslice]

I think it would be like some Christians taking the horrible things from the old testament and going around stoning everyone who don't keep that Sabbath or whatever other backward thinking is in there.

 

[gsa]

Brilliant article in the Atlantic. And, wrong.
I have read many brilliant well researched articles on ISIS and radical Islam in general. The problem with all of the authors thus far is that they take the recent events of the last 10 or 20 or 30 years as indicative of the direction that Islam should or shouldn't; is or isn't - going.
History says they are wrong.
Islam is no different from any other religion or culture that has existed in history.
The Saudis took 300 years to establish their heretical version of Sunni Islam, Wahhabism, as the mainstream Sunni religion. They rose to power in the same manner as ISIS is attempting now - in the last 300 years, the tribe of al Saud sacked and looted and destroyed Mecca at least three times and murdered countless other Arab Muslims (and miscellaneous Jews and Christians etc.) in their quest for dominance.

ISIS is just another faction that seeks dominance. As does the Muslim Brotherhood; Hamas; Boko Haram; Al Qaeda; the Taliban; Pakistan's ISI; Sudan's National Islamic Front; Fatah; Iran's Vilayat al Fiqh or any of the other factions of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage.
This IS the Muslim Reformation. Eventually, they will destroy each other; or destroy the world; or the world will destroy them and, a new "kinder, gentler" Islam will arise from the ashes.
Just as a new way of life for Jews arose from the ashes of their Reformation of 2,000 years ago when they destroyed their world.
Just as a new Christianity arose from the ashes of the European Christian Reformation of 500 years ago after they destroyed their world.

"Authentic Islam" is whatever Islam is dominant at a particular point in history.
Up until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, head cutting; rape; pillage; torture; and barbarism was not a way of life for the majority of Muslims on planet Earth. When it did arise, it was either as a result of war or - the Empire crushed such independent factions that reveled in blood.

What makes the article wrong? Look at this excerpt:

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.

I agree with you regarding "authentic Islam" as well as "authentic Judaism" and "authentic Christianity," and even that this is part of an Islamic reformation process. But the point the article makes is that they believe it. And they have a fairly coherent method of interpretation that can be sourced in the text and tradition.

I don't think that the article is suggesting that ISIS is more authentic than other forms of Islam, just that it is Islamic. This doesn't jive with the view that there is "one true Islam," but then again, as I suggested above, when the diversity of Islamic interpretation is being used to reject the authenticity of ISIS that seems like an incoherent critique.

 

[gsa]

I'm looking forward to some Muslim's opinions on this.
Since I first started learning about ISIS, they struck me as ultraconservative Muslims. They're doing things Muhammad's way, but in the 21st century. Intel is more sophisticated, weapons are more sophisticated, propaganda is more sophisticated, but the methods and goals are the same. And if they are successful a century or so will polish away the crimes.
Tom

They are applying some of what Muhammad did in the 21st century, but I am not sure that they are doing thing's Muhammad's way. You probably can't really emulate Muhammad, not even in the Middle East, in light of the intervening thousand plus years of changes.

 

[gsa]

I think it would be like some Christians taking the horrible things from the old testament and going around stoning everyone who don't keep that Sabbath or whatever other backward thinking is in there.

Can I introduce you to the ideology of Christian Reconstructionism? The patriarch of that movement, Rousas John Rushdoony, believed that democracy was a heresy and that biblical law should be instituted to make things like apostasy, public blasphemy, homosexuality and adultery capital offenses (sound like anyone we have been discussing recently?). His work lives on with the Chalcedon Foundation. This movement's authors are also tied to the Quiverfull movement, which is what the Duggar family is part of.

This is what would happen if there was a crisis and power vacuum and Christian extremists took it upon themselves to take advantage of that crisis and fill that vacuum.

 

[psychoslice]

Can I introduce you to the ideology of Christian Reconstructionism? The patriarch of that movement, Rousas John Rushdoony, believed that democracy was a heresy and that biblical law should be instituted to make things like apostasy, public blasphemy, homosexuality and adultery capital offenses (sound like anyone we have been discussing recently?). His work lives on with the Chalcedon Foundation. This movement's authors are also tied to the Quiverfull movement, which is what the Duggar family is part of.

This is what would happen if there was a crisis and power vacuum and Christian extremists took it upon themselves to take advantage of that crisis and fill that vacuum.

Its mind goggling how many are actually going backwards in their religious thinking, its been happening for some time now, I just cannot work out why ?.

 

[YmirGF]

This IS the Muslim Reformation. Eventually, they will destroy each other; or destroy the world; or the world will destroy them and, a new "kinder, gentler" Islam will arise from the ashes.

I agree with the first part, especially the idea that this IS the Islamic Reformation we are seeing. I disagree that a "kinder, gentler" Islam will arise from the ashes. My own suspicion is that the atrocities have only just begun and that the Islamic State will prove far more resilient than the White House would have us believe... as is already becoming clear... The future I see for Islam is bleak and it will go the way of the Dodo, but only have a great deal more bloodshed.

 

[LuisDantas]

They like to think they are but their not, they take a verse here and there and put their own evil interpretation to them..

I wish I could agree, but there are some serious problems with that approach.

One is that they pretty obviously are serious about their beliefs. Enough so to bet their destinies on a destructive errand of hate. They are not kidding, and I have little doubt that they are sincere if obviously misguided believers. And having no emotional investiment on the truth and validity of the Quran, I have little doubt that they should by any reasonable standard be considered sincere muslims.

Another hurdle is that, despite what I just said, it is tricky at best for outsiders to judge who qualifies as a Muslim and who does not. I actually think people should indeed judge the validity of each other's beliefs and religious practice, constantly at that. But those who think of belief as a personal privilege that should not be questioned will probably take issue.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree with the first part, especially the idea that this IS the Islamic Reformation we are seeing. I disagree that a "kinder, gentler" Islam will arise from the ashes. My own suspicion is that the atrocities have only just begun and that the Islamic State will prove far more resilient than the White House would have us believe... as is already becoming clear... The future I see for Islam is bleak and it will go the way of the Dodo, but only have a great deal more bloodshed.

I suspect you are fairly accurate in this prediction.

What I have learned of Islamic beliefs in recent months leaves little room for hope of it surviving its self-imposed limitations while still having a place in a society with the current population levels and technological achievements.

Painful as it is to say, Islam will probably have to face a long period of choosing often between extinguishing itself or forcing others to finish it in self-defense. Between suffering terrible sorrow or inflicting it upon everyone else.

It is just too reliant on belief over insight to allow itself any better destiny.

 

[SkylarHunter]

The laws followed by ISIS are written in the Koran. Just because must Muslims have the good sense to not act that way, that doesn't make ISIS less islamic, on the contrary, they are Islam taken to extreme, they are the islam that really follows the teachings of the Koran.

From what I read in the Koran, the idea is to eventually eliminate all non-islamic people either by killing them or forcing them to convert. That is exactly what ISIS are doing.

 

[SkylarHunter]

Islam will probably have to face a long period of choosing often between extinguishing itself or forcing others to finish it in self-defense. Between suffering terrible sorrow or inflicting it upon everyone else.

That is exactly what I am afraid off.

 

[Augustus]

I'm looking forward to some Muslim's opinions on this.
Since I first started learning about ISIS, they struck me as ultraconservative Muslims. They're doing things Muhammad's way, but in the 21st century. Intel is more sophisticated, weapons are more sophisticated, propaganda is more sophisticated, but the methods and goals are the same. And if they are successful a century or so will polish away the crimes.
Tom

Ultra conservative Muslims is not an accurate description, ultra-radical maybe but certainly not conservative as they are not a product of orthodox Sunni tradition.

The problem with saying 'are they Islamic?' is that the answer is both yes and no. You can make perfectly valid arguments for both perspectives, it comes down to your definition of what it means to be 'Islamic'.

On the one hand, they use Islamic scripture and jurisprudence to support their actions and they identify as Muslims. Therefore, to some extent, they are Islamic. Although they are widely criticised by clerics, very few have gone so far as to label them apostates from Islam. They also have some degree of support and solidarity from millions of Muslims around the world, albeit only a very small percentage of the total number of Muslims. On these grounds it is hard to say that the movement is 100% not Islamic.

On the other, many of there actions would go against established orthodoxy, and the vast majority of Islamic clerics have criticised them from an Islamic perspective. Most Muslims would point at countless of their actions as being unIslamic, and contrary to the letter and spirit of Muhammed's message as established over centuries of theological scholarship. They might also add that it is a utopian political movement that uses religion as a cloak of legitimacy and grew out of foreign interventionism and the destruction of a society, rather than a religious movement that grew out of clerical scholarship.

Medieval Christianity had numerous similar movements, especially after the reformation. Look at something like the Muenster Anabaptist Rebellion and ask 'Is it Christian?', and the answer is yes and no.

Ultimately, ISIS is both Islamic and not Islamic depending on how you choose to define terms. It's really a 'to what extent....' question rather than a simple yes/no. Shades of grey rather than black/white.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Christians who hate homosexuals are still Christian, right?
Muslims who kill people for not being Muslim enough are still Muslim...

It's simple.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The better question may be: Is ISIS-like fanaticism a necessary and defining characteristic of Islam?

I live in a country with an estimated 5 to 8 million Muslims. If I answer 'yes' to the above question, shall I consider these millions ISIS terrorists in waiting or "not true Muslims"?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think it would be like some Christians taking the horrible things from the old testament and going around stoning everyone who don't keep that Sabbath or whatever other backward thinking is in there.

Like this, straight out of the Bible?