Skip to main content

From The New Republic (now) monthly

Thu Feb 19, 2015

 

Judging by the gurgling over the genuineness of ISIS’ Muslim identity currently issuing from media, you’d think American journalism is replete with scholars of Islam. But the U.S. commentariat is not especially proficient in the study of Islam, and the American public sphere is exactly the wrong place to try to hold a conversation on the authenticity of a group’s religious bona fides.

 

Nonetheless, people have tried. Kareem Abdul Jabbar weighed in during an interview with Joe Scarborough, suggesting that the title of a religion does not ensure its proper practice as he compared ISIS’ relationship with Islam to the Klu Klux Klan’s relationship with Christianity. On Wednesday, President Barack Obama argued that ISIS betrays the “true peaceful nature of Islam,”—and promotes a brutally deformed version of the religion itself—in an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times. Obama’s analysis appears to be based on the testimonies of lay Muslims and experts in the religion; that foundation did not satisfy some.

 

Breitbart, for example, has already published a counter-claim, insisting that ISIS is, contra Obama, explicitly Islamic. The Breitbart article heavily cites Graeme Wood’s carefully researched Atlantic essay on the subject of ISIS’ goals, which identifies the group as “very Islamic” and invested in apocalyptic outcomes. Wood writes that “the religion preached by [ISIS’] most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam,” and his essay features commentary from experts on the military group and its ideology. His treatment of ISIS’ theology is careful, but is, as Jack Jenkins points out at ThinkProgress, incomplete: When it comes to the matter of interpretive authority within a religious group, a single essay, no matter how well-researched, is unlikely to encompass the breadth of the debate.

 

And even if one magazine piece could truly represent the depth and intensity of the interpretive arguments that develop within any longstanding faith, it is unlikely such a piece could do justice to the real kernel of such debates: the problem of sourcing religious authority. Where do we find it? Is it in scriptures, in the practice of rituals and sacraments, in the general faith of believers, or in some combination of all of those things? What makes a literal, ahistorical reading of religious texts more authentic than a reading that incorporates context and historical consideration, as well as the readers’ sense of spiritual guidance?

 

Furthermore, is an unmediated reading even possible, considering that the decision is usually the result of a post-modern angst over lost authenticity? Wood’s essay stumbles onto problems of this nature—for instance, ISIS theologians are unable to articulate what prophetic accounts of “Rome” refer to now that the Pope leads no armies, the city commands no empires. The inheritor of the historical epithet is unclear.

 

There are answers to these hermeneutical problems, and producing them supplies much grist for the mills of religious studies scholars and theologians, not to mention the daily contemplations of ordinary believers. But these are not the kinds of questions that can be answered in the terms we rely on within the typical framework of public debate in our liberal democracy. Our public deliberation relies on the idea that 'religion' is a constant, stable category that can be established empirically, but is not sensitive to the internal logics of individual religions. In September 2014, more than 120 scholars of Islam from around the world directed a letter to ISIS, in which they carefully detailed the multifarious ways the militant group defies the laws and obligations of Islam. “The letter is written in Arabic. It is using heavy classical religious texts and classical religious scholars that ISIS has used to mobilize young people to join its forces,” Nihad Award, the executive director of the Council of American-Islamic Relations said at the time.“This letter is not meant for a liberal audience.”

 

Awad wasn’t using ‘liberal’ in the way it is pejoratively deployed on Fox talk shows, but in its purest sense, the sense that refers to the intellectual attitude arising from the Enlightenment, the one that still colors much of our political discourse. These Enlightenment ideas include the notion of a religious tolerance that confines certain beliefs and practices to a specifically religious sphere, and the idea that reason provides a stable, universally accessible guide to investigating all manner of problems. In the liberal mindset that gives us individual rights, freedom of belief among them, religion is a broad category into which almost any belief or practice can be promised an equal guarantee of protection in the eyes of the law. In the liberal formation, a lapsed Catholic who rarely makes it to Mass is as authentically ‘religious’ as the deeply observant Jew who never works on Shabbat. Which, for the purposes of our government, is a good thing.

 

But since most of our public discussions of religion take place within this liberal framework, we lack a grammar and vocabulary for arguing about the content of religions in the public sphere. Because our presumptions about how to source religious authority are largely private and rarely interrogated in public (especially in interfaith contexts) we presume those assumptions are either broadly shared or simply correct, and base our public statements about the authenticity of religious belief and practice on them.

 

And yet, determining religious legitimacy would require not only a debate about how authority is sourced in each particular tradition, but an understanding of what relationship to that authority would produce authenticity. It would also require some sort of agreement on the identity of the person or group making the call, and their right to do so. After all, even if ISIS is ‘Muslim’ because they use Islamic texts and incorporate some elements of Islamic history into their political practice, isn’t it possible they’re bad Muslims, heretical Muslims, or some sort of ‘lapsed’ Muslims—still Muslim, but without the broadly damning consequences of less qualified labels? Our public discussions rarely penetrate this deeply into the matter precisely because we are not used to establishing the authentic content of religions. A moment of high religious tension is probably not the best one in which to try to develop a public language for debating these truths. And since we are neither equipped nor posed to develop such a language right now, the question of whether or not ISIS is authentically Muslim seems endlessly fraught and otiose.

 

It would be better to meditate on what we are trying to accomplish when we set out to determine whether or not ISIS can be properly called Islamic. I doubt the goal is purely academic. And if the idea is to foment widespread agreement that Islam necessitates the horrific brutality on display in ISIS’ communications, then it’s nothing more than propaganda—a pyrrhic victory.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I have some follow-up questions:

  • What is meant by a "Sunni"?
  • How do we know which of the various tribal versions of Islamic following in the Middle East is the ONE? Is there such a thing as ONE Islam or is there room for different versions?
  • Is the Wahabbi or Salafi tradition the ONE to be followed?
  • What about the liberal Islam followed by Asians and Africans and recent migrants to Europe and North America?
  • Are 200 million Shiites apostates who ought to be ethnically cleaned from God's earth?
  • Is slavery, amputation, stoning, etc. a must to be not considered a Muslim?
Kari

How much Muslims you know personally?

99% of them say ISIS are Muslims.

Also, ISIS is willing to give up their own lives for their religion, they are so committed.

 

Add those together and there is your answer If ISIS is Muslim or not.

 

this is funny...I was talking to a fullah, and he said ISIS are Jews masquerading as Muslims, hehehe

 

FM
Originally Posted by TI:
this is funny...I was talking to a fullah, and he said ISIS are Jews masquerading as Muslims, hehehe

 

 

Yea i heard that one too from Muslim "scholars." You people are a delusional lot.

FM
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by TI:
this is funny...I was talking to a fullah, and he said ISIS are Jews masquerading as Muslims, hehehe

 

 

Yea i heard that one too from Muslim "scholars." You people are a delusional lot.

I think TI is being direct and honest and you are being your usual self.

Nehru
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by TI:
this is funny...I was talking to a fullah, and he said ISIS are Jews masquerading as Muslims, hehehe

 

 

Yea i heard that one too from Muslim "scholars." You people are a delusional lot.

I think TI is being direct and honest and you are being your usual self.

Terry and Kari are QC graduates.

Chief
Originally Posted by Chief:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by TI:
this is funny...I was talking to a fullah, and he said ISIS are Jews masquerading as Muslims, hehehe

 

 

Yea i heard that one too from Muslim "scholars." You people are a delusional lot.

I think TI is being direct and honest and you are being your usual self.

Terry and Kari are QC graduates.

Bhai, Saddam Hussein and Hitler were also graduates.

 

 

I man joking TI dont pelt lash.

Nehru

The Un-Islamic State? How ISIS distorts Islam what the Prophet (saws) said about them.

A public lecture with H. E. Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi.

Lecture begins 6pm EST.

New Brunswick Islamic Center

 

1330 Livingston Ave, North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902
Friday Feb 27th 6pm
Chief
Originally Posted by Chief:
Originally Posted by Nehru:

Bhai, Saddam Hussein and Hitler were also graduates.

 

 

I man joking TI dont pelt lash.

You forget Uncle Burnham

Dat is right . One man by himself frig up ma whole country.  Heducation and all.

Nehru

...and Granger

 

chief

everybody knows ISIS distorts the core fundamentals of Islam, except the Republicans and the Christian Right wings

 

But that don't stop them from being Muslims. Non Muslims don't care about distortions...they love it! Just another reason for cartoons and burning Qurans....speaking of which, haven't heard of any lately!  I wonder why!

FM
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by Chief:
Originally Posted by Nehru:

Bhai, Saddam Hussein and Hitler were also graduates.

 

 

I man joking TI dont pelt lash.

You forget Uncle Burnham

Dat is right . One man by himself frig up ma whole country.  Heducation and all.

iS A GOOD THING dONANLD AND rOHEE DID NOT GO TO SCHOOL.

Chief
Originally Posted by Chief:

The Un-Islamic State? How ISIS distorts Islam what the Prophet (saws) said about them.

A public lecture with H. E. Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi.

Lecture begins 6pm EST.

New Brunswick Islamic Center

 

1330 Livingston Ave, North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902
Friday Feb 27th 6pm

Terry and Kari I will be going do you guys want a ride?

Chief
Originally Posted by TI:

...and Granger

 

chief

everybody knows ISIS distorts the core fundamentals of Islam, except the Republicans and the Christian Right wings

 

But that don't stop them from being Muslims. Non Muslims don't care about distortions...they love it! Just another reason for cartoons and burning Qurans....speaking of which, haven't heard of any lately!  I wonder why!

You propa wicked. Ask D2 !!

 

I see the man catching a fit over ISIS, he CALLING FOR BOMBS like if it going out of stlye. D2 say no NEGOTIATIONS JUST BOMB.

Chief
Originally Posted by TI:

...and Granger

 

chief

everybody knows ISIS distorts the core fundamentals of Islam, except the Republicans and the Christian Right wings

 

But that don't stop them from being Muslims. Non Muslims don't care about distortions...they love it! Just another reason for cartoons and burning Qurans....speaking of which, haven't heard of any lately!  I wonder why!

I do not like  that they do hence my comments...They have scriptural quotes for every thing they do...and talk with the PUBA and the ALLAH whatever Bar punctuating their phrases and they came directly out of mosques and masjids and lived and breathed their nascient air on muslim streets!

 

Only apologists like you and Chief who think they are a group awakened by the US and not by the thousand and a half years of sectarian feuding or revivalist creed predicating the new mujaddid.

 

I call them what they call themselves. Since there is no Reformed tradition articulating what is ISLAM these are who from whence they sprang...Islamic culture and creed. You do not get to pick about the weeds to select the best patch and call it islam.

 

Just as deformed hemans calling themselves Christians created the Inquisition, the witch hunts and as they themselves grounded their beliefs in the faiths of their fathers so are these demon spawn of islam.

 

 

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by Chief:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by TI:
this is funny...I was talking to a fullah, and he said ISIS are Jews masquerading as Muslims, hehehe

 

 

Yea i heard that one too from Muslim "scholars." You people are a delusional lot.

I think TI is being direct and honest and you are being your usual self.

Terry and Kari are QC graduates.

So what?

FM

Axctually a British Guy was on Anderson Cooper last night and stated that the Teaching of a brand of Islam is what created ISIS and not that ISIS is creating a JIhadist brand. I may not have quoted exactly but what he was saying is that ISIS got their messaged from Teachers of Islam.

Nehru

Immaterial whether or not ISIS is of the Islam faith.

 

The fundamental issue is that this group of individuals is estimated to be far less than one percent of those who are of the faith.

 

The more than 99 percent do not support their actions.

FM
Originally Posted by TI:

How much Muslims you know personally?


 

Might I ask the same question of you sir?

 

And while you're at it, it might be useful to address some of the questions I raised. I myself am trying to understand this phenomenon and that's why I'm being polemical and reasoned answers would help. I can do without the extraneous stuff as well as 100% of the other replies. I'm looking for an educated discussion, seriously.

 

Thanks.

Kari
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Immaterial whether or not ISIS is of the Islam faith.

 

The fundamental issue is that this group of individuals is estimated to be far less than one percent of those who are of the faith.

 

The more than 99 percent do not support their actions.

I couldn't agree with you more. But I believe the West is looking for more robous condemnation from the 99%. Just saying.

Nehru
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Immaterial whether or not ISIS is of the Islam faith.

 

The fundamental issue is that this group of individuals is estimated to be far less than one percent of those who are of the faith.

 

The more than 99 percent do not support their actions.

I couldn't agree with you more. But I believe the West is looking for more robous condemnation from the 99%. Just saying.

I think there has been condemnation, the news don't carry it because it does not sell well

FM
Originally Posted by RiffRaff:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Immaterial whether or not ISIS is of the Islam faith.

 

The fundamental issue is that this group of individuals is estimated to be far less than one percent of those who are of the faith.

 

The more than 99 percent do not support their actions.

I couldn't agree with you more. But I believe the West is looking for more robous condemnation from the 99%. Just saying.

I think there has been condemnation, the news don't carry it because it does not sell well

Like I said Bhia, I am only selling it the way I bought it.  Me and dis Religion thing like Ile and Wata

Nehru
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by TI:

How much Muslims you know personally?


 

Might I ask the same question of you sir?

 

And while you're at it, it might be useful to address some of the questions I raised. I myself am trying to understand this phenomenon and that's why I'm being polemical and reasoned answers would help. I can do without the extraneous stuff as well as 100% of the other replies. I'm looking for an educated discussion, seriously.

 

Thanks.

 

Yes, very important questions!

And the answer goes back to the early post prophetic era of Islam.

 

That is why a while back I said true Islam is a dying religion.

islam was fractured as soon as the prophet died, and while some continued on spiritual and esoteric paths, others chose a more ritualistic and materialistic path.  Throw in politics, wealth, power, control, and tribalism, and you have a good idea how Islam was being redefined from the numerous inter Islamic battles and civil wars.

 

You wanted to know if the Salafis doctrine is the one to follow.

Based on Wahab puritanical doctrine, many people mistakenly assume this the is the correct path to follow.

Yet, the success of the Wahabi doctrine was accidental. This puranitical sectarian revivalist movement only succeeded under the patronage of ibn Saud who used them to gain unprecedented control over the Arabian peninsula.

 

Wahab's view of Islam is actually similar to that of ISIS.  He wanted to return to the unadulterated Muslim umma as existed in Medina in the 6th century. Any dissidents, especially Sufis and Shiahs were put to the sword. Ibn Saud powerful support of Wahab resulted in the conquer of both Mecca and Medina, and brought them under Sauds control.

 

Look at this scenario.  Wahab burned every single book except the Quran, banned music, flowers, smoking, and forced men to grow beards and women veiled under penalty of death. Even so, his doctrine would have died out but for the good fortune of oil and the British.

 

The Anglo-Saudi treaty of 1915 ensured the success of Saudi rebellion and control of the Arabian Peninsula from Ottoman control, and its new name...Kingdom of Saudi Arabian...and then oil!

 
As a point of interest, after the Wahabi doctrine was imposed, there was a public execution of 40 thousand men!  Seems familiar?
 
Now the crux of the matter is you want to find out what is the true and correct Islamic path to follow.  That my friend is why we have this situation today.
Each scholar, sect, Imam think theirs is the true way.  
Through conflict, winner takes all

 

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by Nehru:

With all dat Jhanjat I am surprise most dont switch Religion or have no religion at all.

The good news is that one can ignore all the political shenanigans and see the beauty which is still there. Most Muslims continue to exist peacefully because they are from remote parts of the world separate from all the political misgivings and basically just indulging in the religious rituals. They are the truly blessed Muslims.

FM

The Ummah can really use a governing body which is subject to change through elections. A body that just set forth global guidelines but can be changed if the masses determine that it is not acting in the best interest of the ummah. I have no evidence to support the argument that the average Muslim don't understand his rights and responsibilities so they would be perfectly competent in determining if the representatives are acting in the best interest of them and Islam. Today we have all these different imams all thinking and preaching that only them know/are doing the right thing. Most of these imams in my opinion should be kicked to the curb. 

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by TI:

...and Granger

 

chief

everybody knows ISIS distorts the core fundamentals of Islam, except the Republicans and the Christian Right wings

 

But that don't stop them from being Muslims. Non Muslims don't care about distortions...they love it! Just another reason for cartoons and burning Qurans....speaking of which, haven't heard of any lately!  I wonder why!

I do not like  that they do hence my comments...They have scriptural quotes for every thing they do...and talk with the PUBA and the ALLAH whatever Bar punctuating their phrases and they came directly out of mosques and masjids and lived and breathed their nascient air on muslim streets!

 

Only apologists like you and Chief who think they are a group awakened by the US and not by the thousand and a half years of sectarian feuding or revivalist creed predicating the new mujaddid.

 

I call them what they call themselves. Since there is no Reformed tradition articulating what is ISLAM these are who from whence they sprang...Islamic culture and creed. You do not get to pick about the weeds to select the best patch and call it islam.

 

Just as deformed hemans calling themselves Christians created the Inquisition, the witch hunts and as they themselves grounded their beliefs in the faiths of their fathers so are these demon spawn of islam.

 

 

Not Christian bro. Catholics were the ones with the inquisition. Not the same, there are major differences. 

S
Originally Posted by seignet:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by TI:

...and Granger

 

chief

everybody knows ISIS distorts the core fundamentals of Islam, except the Republicans and the Christian Right wings

 

But that don't stop them from being Muslims. Non Muslims don't care about distortions...they love it! Just another reason for cartoons and burning Qurans....speaking of which, haven't heard of any lately!  I wonder why!

I do not like  that they do hence my comments...They have scriptural quotes for every thing they do...and talk with the PUBA and the ALLAH whatever Bar punctuating their phrases and they came directly out of mosques and masjids and lived and breathed their nascient air on muslim streets!

 

Only apologists like you and Chief who think they are a group awakened by the US and not by the thousand and a half years of sectarian feuding or revivalist creed predicating the new mujaddid.

 

I call them what they call themselves. Since there is no Reformed tradition articulating what is ISLAM these are who from whence they sprang...Islamic culture and creed. You do not get to pick about the weeds to select the best patch and call it islam.

 

Just as deformed hemans calling themselves Christians created the Inquisition, the witch hunts and as they themselves grounded their beliefs in the faiths of their fathers so are these demon spawn of islam.

 

 

Not Christian bro. Catholics were the ones with the inquisition. Not the same, there are major differences. 

so when ir comes to Christians committing atrocities It is OK to SECT-ionize them but when it comes to Muslim the whole religion is to blame

Pointblank
Last edited by Pointblank

TI mentions what is known about the Wahabis. The ISIS doctrine (yes doctrine and not religion) is takes Whahabism one step further in establishing a Caliphate with a Caliph - things anathema to what liberal Muslims know, that  is, do not exult in a human.

 

I asked those questions to hear what ardent Muslims like Kzaaazz and Pointblank and Chief offer as explanation to their faith. I have always been someone to continually question religion though I have a belief in faith while marrying this to reason.

 

Do the holy Quran and the Haddiths call for all the things ISIS espouse - stoning, amputation, slavery, beheadings and immolation, etc.? If not then we should stop calling ISIS people of any religion - just call them sub-humans who are to be exterminated.

Kari

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×