Is ISIS un-Islamic? The Atlantic article and controversy
An extremely well-researched, interesting and provocative article was published in The Atlantic a few days ago called What ISIS Really Wants. I can't recommend the article highly enough.
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
It's a marvellous example of long-form journalism, and really drills down into Islamic State's ideology and belief systems, how they are different from Al-Qaeda (and indeed every other Islamic militant group). The article manages to convey, in a way I could intuitively and viscerally understand, why so many Muslims have found its creed attractive. As I mentioned above, it is long-form (it is divided into six chapters, which are each between 5 and 20 paragraphcs).
One of the more interesting aspects of IS beliefs it discusses is the prophecy of a final battle between "Rome" and the forces of true Islam at the Syrian town of Dabiq. IS calls their English-language magazine Dabiq, and they expended hugely disproportionate forces to capture the strategically-insignificant town in the hope they will fulfill the prophecy. Understanding things like that can be hugely helpful in formulating how to beat IS as their rigid adherence to prophecies and suchlike could make them more predictable, or prone to being manipulated by way of that belief
Most controversially, it addresses the question of whether Islamic State can be considered Islamic and concludes, at least, accusations that it is un-Islamic (especially from non-Muslim Western politicians) are fatuous and meaningless at best, and could be an active tool for recruiting at worst. Understanding Islamic State's ideology and beliefs are vital to mounting effective opposition, and I really hope this article will attract the attention of US and UK policy-makers who have the IS file, and encourage them to do some deeper thinking (if they have, it clearly hasn't been getting through given Obama's unhelpful statements)
It has also engendered much controversy in the mainstream left/progressive blogosphere and twitterati, who are outraged that this journalist could even tentatively broach the idea that Islamic State may be a more authentic interpretation of Islam than that which modern mainstream Muslims follow. Personally, I think their criticism is weak; the article was a superb, thought-provoking piece of journalism in an age where Twitter has become a news source and the Telegraph online carried a story about a three-breasted woman. The Atlantic article also spoke directly to (officially unaffiliated) IS-sympathetic figures in the Islamic community and academics in the field, and it didn't emphatically come down on any particular side of that question.
I recommend this article wholeheartedly, 4 1/2 stars
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
It's a marvellous example of long-form journalism, and really drills down into Islamic State's ideology and belief systems, how they are different from Al-Qaeda (and indeed every other Islamic militant group). The article manages to convey, in a way I could intuitively and viscerally understand, why so many Muslims have found its creed attractive. As I mentioned above, it is long-form (it is divided into six chapters, which are each between 5 and 20 paragraphcs).
One of the more interesting aspects of IS beliefs it discusses is the prophecy of a final battle between "Rome" and the forces of true Islam at the Syrian town of Dabiq. IS calls their English-language magazine Dabiq, and they expended hugely disproportionate forces to capture the strategically-insignificant town in the hope they will fulfill the prophecy. Understanding things like that can be hugely helpful in formulating how to beat IS as their rigid adherence to prophecies and suchlike could make them more predictable, or prone to being manipulated by way of that belief
Most controversially, it addresses the question of whether Islamic State can be considered Islamic and concludes, at least, accusations that it is un-Islamic (especially from non-Muslim Western politicians) are fatuous and meaningless at best, and could be an active tool for recruiting at worst. Understanding Islamic State's ideology and beliefs are vital to mounting effective opposition, and I really hope this article will attract the attention of US and UK policy-makers who have the IS file, and encourage them to do some deeper thinking (if they have, it clearly hasn't been getting through given Obama's unhelpful statements)
It has also engendered much controversy in the mainstream left/progressive blogosphere and twitterati, who are outraged that this journalist could even tentatively broach the idea that Islamic State may be a more authentic interpretation of Islam than that which modern mainstream Muslims follow. Personally, I think their criticism is weak; the article was a superb, thought-provoking piece of journalism in an age where Twitter has become a news source and the Telegraph online carried a story about a three-breasted woman. The Atlantic article also spoke directly to (officially unaffiliated) IS-sympathetic figures in the Islamic community and academics in the field, and it didn't emphatically come down on any particular side of that question.
I recommend this article wholeheartedly, 4 1/2 stars
(edited 9 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
The greatest crime- or one of them - for Muslims is to kill innocents ESPECIALLY by fire......Isis by their heinous crimes have clearly shown that they are not following any islamic teachings authentically or otherwise. It is ludicrous to suggest that they are Islamic...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by elhm1800
The greatest crime- or one of them - for Muslims is to kill innocents ESPECIALLY by fire......Isis by their heinous crimes have clearly shown that they are not following any islamic teachings authentically or otherwise. It is ludicrous to suggest that they are Islamic...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Out of curiosity, why is killing innocents by fire a particularly heinous crime in Islam? Is there a verse for this?
ISIS would of course argue that the people being punished were not innocents, but enemies of the khilafa. For the Jordanian pilot and the Kurdish peshmerga, ISIS would definitely argue they were fighting against the one truly Muslim state on earth and for a Muslim to do so is basically apostasy in their eyes given the obligation for able-bodied Muslims to join a caliphate's armies on request if the caliph is authentic and true
And as far as using fire goes, there must be a reason they use it. Pretty much everything they do in the way of executions, crime, punishment and so on are based literally on core Islamic text
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not defending them. They are revolting barbarians, the worst scum. If a group manages to turn the Saudis and the Iranians (and now Egypt) against themselves rather than fighting each other, that says something quite profound about how repulsive the group is
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Tpos
If you're going to read that I hope you read the rebuttals that have been written too e.g by Haroon Moghul and Mohamed Ghilan.
I hope you read the original before the rebuttals told you what to think.
I did read the Salon and HuffPo rebuttals, both were built on strawmans claiming that the original article said ISIS is the authentic Islam, or is more authentic than other forms. He didn't say that (though he didn't say they weren't authentic either... he went to the trouble to find a really interesting ultra-conservative anti-terrorism Salafist, fascinating chap, whose ultraconservative instincts take him in the opposite direction as ISIS). In essence, who is to say what is "real" Islam and what is not?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by young_guns
Out of curiosity, why is killing innocents by fire a particularly heinous crime in Islam? Is there a verse for this?
The Prophet (SAW) said: “No one should punish with fire except Allah.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3016).
Original post by young_guns
Out of curiosity, why is killing innocents by fire a particularly heinous crime in Islam? Is there a verse for this?
ISIS would of course argue that the people being punished were not innocents, but enemies of the khilafa. For the Jordanian pilot and the Kurdish peshmerga, ISIS would definitely argue they were fighting against the one truly Muslim state on earth and for a Muslim to do so is basically apostasy in their eyes given the obligation for able-bodied Muslims to join a caliphate's armies on request if the caliph is authentic and true
And as far as using fire goes, there must be a reason they use it. Pretty much everything they do in the way of executions, crime, punishment and so on are based literally on core Islamic text
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not defending them. They are revolting barbarians, the worst scum. If a group manages to turn the Saudis and the Iranians (and now Egypt) against themselves rather than fighting each other, that says something quite profound about how repulsive the group is
ISIS would of course argue that the people being punished were not innocents, but enemies of the khilafa. For the Jordanian pilot and the Kurdish peshmerga, ISIS would definitely argue they were fighting against the one truly Muslim state on earth and for a Muslim to do so is basically apostasy in their eyes given the obligation for able-bodied Muslims to join a caliphate's armies on request if the caliph is authentic and true
And as far as using fire goes, there must be a reason they use it. Pretty much everything they do in the way of executions, crime, punishment and so on are based literally on core Islamic text
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not defending them. They are revolting barbarians, the worst scum. If a group manages to turn the Saudis and the Iranians (and now Egypt) against themselves rather than fighting each other, that says something quite profound about how repulsive the group is
I'm largely in agreement with you; the mediocrity of Muslim leaders trying to dissociate themselves from the Islamic State (IS) by appealing to Western audiences' tendency to view any extremist group of any creed as necessarily representing an adulteration of said creed would be funny if it wasn't dangerous.
One small point, though: I don't think the collective opposition from regional rivals is indicative of how repulsive the group is. The Saudis, at least, are only hostile to IS because it openly desires to incorporate Saudi Arabia and its allies into the Caliphate, subjecting the monarchy to a very grisly end in the process, one can infer.
The point I'm trying to make is that these countries are opposed to them for political reasons. There are plenty of people in Saudi Arabia and Jordan and the other countries conducting airstrikes that sympathise with IS. They might even join in if it weren't for al-Baghdadi's nullification of their territorial integrity. The Saudis want to keep their royal family, the Egyptians don't want to share a border with IS and the Iranians, being mostly Shias, have a lot to lose; IS hasn't been discreet about its genocidal ambitions when it comes to Shia Muslims.
Original post by young_guns
Out of curiosity, why is killing innocents by fire a particularly heinous crime in Islam? Is there a verse for this?
ISIS would of course argue that the people being punished were not innocents, but enemies of the khilafa. For the Jordanian pilot and the Kurdish peshmerga, ISIS would definitely argue they were fighting against the one truly Muslim state on earth and for a Muslim to do so is basically apostasy in their eyes given the obligation for able-bodied Muslims to join a caliphate's armies on request if the caliph is authentic and true
And as far as using fire goes, there must be a reason they use it. Pretty much everything they do in the way of executions, crime, punishment and so on are based literally on core Islamic text
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not defending them. They are revolting barbarians, the worst scum. If a group manages to turn the Saudis and the Iranians (and now Egypt) against themselves rather than fighting each other, that says something quite profound about how repulsive the group is
ISIS would of course argue that the people being punished were not innocents, but enemies of the khilafa. For the Jordanian pilot and the Kurdish peshmerga, ISIS would definitely argue they were fighting against the one truly Muslim state on earth and for a Muslim to do so is basically apostasy in their eyes given the obligation for able-bodied Muslims to join a caliphate's armies on request if the caliph is authentic and true
And as far as using fire goes, there must be a reason they use it. Pretty much everything they do in the way of executions, crime, punishment and so on are based literally on core Islamic text
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not defending them. They are revolting barbarians, the worst scum. If a group manages to turn the Saudis and the Iranians (and now Egypt) against themselves rather than fighting each other, that says something quite profound about how repulsive the group is
This is exactly what they argue and ideologically it is wrong. Islamically, there is no basis for this. Isis aren't even a khilafa yet they believe anyone who fights them is an apostate. Isis extend this to every group they're fighting and this includes qaeda in Syria who they consider apostates.
Fighting the rightful ruler (which Baghdadi is not) isn't necessarily apostasy and the intention behind why they're fighting is important.
Original post by Untitled.
This is exactly what they argue and ideologically it is wrong. Islamically, there is no basis for this. Isis aren't even a khilafa
Why not? Why is IS' declaration invalid?
I am, of course, not in any sense a supporter of IS, I despise them. But I think arguments against them on the basis that they are "un-Islamic" is just counterproductive.
Arguing that anything bad is "un-Islamic" is just taking us back to the intolerant "No True Scotsman" nonsense that we see so often. And who decides that IS' version of Islam is incorrect while theirs is correct?
Original post by HAnwar
The Prophet (SAW) said: “No one should punish with fire except Allah.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3016).
Interesting. I wonder what IS would say about this? Again, I doubt they just chose fire randomly, pretty much everything IS does is designed to appeal to some ancient verse or prophecy or punishment.
Did you read the article?
Original post by Hydeman
The point I'm trying to make is that these countries are opposed to them for political reasons. There are plenty of people in Saudi Arabia and Jordan and the other countries conducting airstrikes that sympathise with IS.
The point I'm trying to make is that these countries are opposed to them for political reasons. There are plenty of people in Saudi Arabia and Jordan and the other countries conducting airstrikes that sympathise with IS.
What I was getting at is that Saudi Arabia and Iran always find themselves on opposing sides, they will find a reason to support one side to injure the other.
When you have Iran and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the United States, France, Germany, Denmark, the UK, Canada and Australia all opposing a particular enemy, with Russia, China and Japan providing discrete support, I think it does say something about that group and the degree to which even countries with a long history of financing terrorism or insurgency can clearly see that this group is to civilisation what anti-matter is to matter
ISIS is a Zionist creation with only one aim and that is to create further havoc in the Muslim world. Some Muslims are just foolish enough to join this group and not realise it's true purpose.
Original post by Raymat
ISIS is a Zionist creation with only one aim and that is to create further havoc in the Muslim world. Some Muslims are just foolish enough to join this group and not realise it's true purpose.
Original post by Algorithm69
I'm gonna go Godwin and create Ollie's Law: when discussing any widespread problem (especially including muslims), someone will blame it on Zionists.
They are Sunni Muslims and the brutal military spearhead of Islam. Check this out. They are violent animals with a lust for blood. Very sick minded. Gotta be exterminated like the verminous plague they are. The West ignores them at their peril. And the BBC worries about three silly school girls who want to join up with these filth. Stuff those silly bitches. There's bigger fish to fry.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2959934/Beaten-death-mob-Hundreds-savage-ISIS-supporters-swarm-Syrian-prisoners-kick-death-corpses-dragged-streets.html
Original post by Algorithm69
Ollie's Law: "As an online discussion centering on Islamic terrorism grows longer, the probability of Jews/Zionism being blamed for said terrorism approaches 1".
That's better, thank you
Original post by young_guns
Interesting. I wonder what IS would say about this? Again, I doubt they just chose fire randomly, pretty much everything IS does is designed to appeal to some ancient verse or prophecy or punishment.
Did you read the article?
Did you read the article?
You can't justify using fire to kill, when it's written crystal clear it's not allowed.
It's not part of Islam, simple as.
I read a bit of it then got bored.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by young_guns
What I was getting at is that Saudi Arabia and Iran always find themselves on opposing sides, they will find a reason to support one side to injure the other.
When you have Iran and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the United States, France, Germany, Denmark, the UK, Canada and Australia all opposing a particular enemy, with Russia, China and Japan providing discrete support, I think it does say something about that group and the degree to which even countries with a long history of financing terrorism or insurgency can clearly see that this group is to civilisation what anti-matter is to matter
When you have Iran and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the United States, France, Germany, Denmark, the UK, Canada and Australia all opposing a particular enemy, with Russia, China and Japan providing discrete support, I think it does say something about that group and the degree to which even countries with a long history of financing terrorism or insurgency can clearly see that this group is to civilisation what anti-matter is to matter
I disagree. What you say about civilisation is true but, again, these countries, normally enemies of each other, are in tacit alliance because IS either poses a direct threat to them (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan) or their people (Iran, Egypt) or they understand that their interests will be compromised if they're allowed to continue unchecked (every non-Middle Eastern country in that list). They are acting entirely in their own political/geopolitical interests. Most of the countries on that list care very little for civilisation.
Hostility toward IS by countries with a history of financing terrorism is not evidence of their disgust. Countries of this variety don't mind IS-type organisations at all as long as they foster a master-slave relationship with them. They couldn't give a damn about civilisation; their own agenda is all-important. IS has broken from tradition in giving the finger to their former sponsors and declaring a state which claims territory over which most of their former sponsors preside. At this point, a state sponsor of terrorism may simply stop funding an IS-type group and ignore it. But IS is difficult to ignore. It has made gains no terrorist organisation could have dreamed of and has successfully managed to consolidate its rule, despite recent failures.
What's the evidence for any of this? Well, such fierce opposition has resulted only when IS has become a threat; it existed long before it became famous and held the same rigid dogmas. Why doesn't Egypt care about Boko Haram, which, at the very least, is doing everything IS is, with less publicity? I suspect it is because it is Nigeria's problem. Indeed, Egypt didn't join the fight until IS captured several towns in Libya and beheaded Egyptians. Countries scarcely act outside their own interests. The latest crisis is no exception.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Skip_Snip
I'm gonna go Godwin and create Ollie's Law: when discussing any widespread problem (especially including muslims), someone a Muslim will blame it on Zionists.
Fixed that for you.
Original post by saully
Fixed that for you.
or general fin toil hat nutters and apologists.
ISIS are as Islamic as it gets really. The spread of Islam and Islamic religious law worldwide, using Jihad as a means, is pretty much a summary of what the Quran commands.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Make it More Postage Stamp-ey !!
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- child trust fund
- I'm A Muslim. Ask Me Anything!
- A level History NEA Coursework
- Muslim Girl but I want to be a (animal) Vet
- EPQ rewording/rephrasing
- Spanish idioms
- liverpool university accommodation replacement tenant for 2023/24
- Make it More Wild Cat-ey !!
- Make it More French Food-ey !!
- Make it More Nut-ey !!
- There is now a room available for Liverpool Students in Atlantic Point
- Make it More Trouser-ey !!
- Could the UK join NAFTA?
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Make it More Relatives-ey !!
- What is the best way to learn French?
- Anyone heard from Oxford yet?
- Make it More French Food-ey !!
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
