Is ISIS Islamic?

[Moishe3rd]

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.

I shall attempt to be a bit more coherent... perhaps?

The article does not "get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy."
Why? Because the author would have to clearly connect the dots to radical Sunni Islam's current origin of incarnation - Saudi Wahhabism.
ALL radical Sunni Muslim sects, such as the ones I mentioned above, are firmly rooted in Saudi Wahhabism.
The author is claiming that ISIS is following "the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail." But, that is only true - according to the current philosophy of Saudi Wahhabism! (Which is 300 years old at worst and has only been dominant for the last 100 years.)
They are NOT following "the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail" based on the understanding and morays of previous Muslim Empires and Caliphates and rulers for the last 1,400 years.
This is the problem that I am addressing - a very short sighted view of history; interpretations and modes of thinking change with time.
It is absolutely pointless to try and claim that ISIS is interpreting Islam's founder as the way it was originally intended!
Every other religion and philosophy on planet Earth has undergone massive change and redefinition over time. And they all have, or have had, their periods of extremism and hatred for all who do not believe in their particular philosophy of the time.
ISIS (and the recent phenomenon of Saudi Wahhabism) is no different.

 

[Moishe3rd]

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.

It appears that you may be referring to the immediate future.
In that, you may be correct.
However, historically, my broad based options are also obviously correct.
As Jews slaughtered each other and non Jews with equanimity 2,000 years ago - they destroyed the Kingdom of Israel; the Second Temple and millions of Jews, but - they did not go the way of the Dodo.
As European Christians slaughtered each other and non Christians with equanimity 500 years ago - they destroyed the kingdoms of Europe; devastated the continent; tens of millions were wiped out, but - they did not go the way of the Dodo.
Yes - if Islam takes the same historic course, billions could die and portions of planet Earth could be left uninhabitable. However, if that devastation does not occur, it will mean that Islam somehow corrects its current self immolation stage of development. In which case, it will not go the way of the Dodo.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I shall attempt to be a bit more coherent... perhaps?

The article does not "get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy."
Why? Because the author would have to clearly connect the dots to radical Sunni Islam's current origin of incarnation - Saudi Wahhabism.
ALL radical Sunni Muslim sects, such as the ones I mentioned above, are firmly rooted in Saudi Wahhabism.
The author is claiming that ISIS is following "the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail." But, that is only true - according to the current philosophy of Saudi Wahhabism! (Which is 300 years old at worst and has only been dominant for the last 100 years.)
They are NOT following "the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail" based on the understanding and morays of previous Muslim Empires and Caliphates and rulers for the last 1,400 years.
This is the problem that I am addressing - a very short sighted view of history; interpretations and modes of thinking change with time.
It is absolutely pointless to try and claim that ISIS is interpreting Islam's founder as the way it was originally intended!
Every other religion and philosophy on planet Earth has undergone massive change and redefinition over time. And they all have, or have had, their periods of extremism and hatred for all who do not believe in their particular philosophy of the time.
ISIS (and the recent phenomenon of Saudi Wahhabism) is no different.

Excellent post!

 

[YmirGF]

Yes - if Islam takes the same historic course, billions could die and portions of planet Earth could be left uninhabitable. However, if that devastation does not occur, it will mean that Islam somehow corrects its current self immolation stage of development. In which case, it will not go the way of the Dodo.

I hear you, but Islam suffers from several things that are peculiar to Islam.

1) Belief that the Qur'an is the unaltered Word of Allah and contains no errors.
2) Islam is perfect

This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

3) Loving the prophet of Islam more than ones family (better known as fanaticism)
4) Sharia law is better than any other form of law as it is god's law.
5) the rejection of modernity due to injunctions against innovation

Sadly, it will be enormously difficult for Muslims to get themselves out the pine box of this kind of thinking.

 

[DawudTalut]

Question @ OP = Is ISIS Islamic?

Answer

Peace be on all. They are all the most worst things on the name of Islam yet they did not know the religion.
1= QUOTE
A French journalist's ISIS captors cared little about religion, Didier Francois -- who spent over 10 months as the group's prisoner in Syria -- told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview on Tuesday.

"There was never really discussion about texts or -- it was not a religious discussion. It was a political discussion."
Source: ISIS captors cared little about religion, says former hostage - CNN.com


2= A German remained with terrorists:
QUOTE
He said he reminded the fighters that most chapters of the Koran began with the words "Allah... most merciful".

"I asked: Where is the mercy? I never got the real answer."
Source: BBC News - Rare Islamic State visit reveals 'brutal and strong' force

Ref:Evidence ISIS does not know Islam. | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Moishe3rd]

I hear you, but Islam suffers from several things that are peculiar to Islam.

1) Belief that the Qur'an is the unaltered Word of Allah and contains no errors.
2) Islam is perfect

3) Loving the prophet of Islam more than ones family (better known as fanaticism)
4) Sharia law is better than any other form of law as it is god's law.
5) the rejection of modernity due to injunctions against innovation

Sadly, it will be enormously difficult for Muslims to get themselves out the pine box of this kind of thinking.

Indeed. Of course! They are destroying their world, and our world, as we write.
However, Man has done this kind of thing based on their "immutable teachings" - forever.
Even today - the religion of the "immutable teachings" of "science" has taken control of wide swathes of humanity. Those who challenge the current soup of the day "Global Warming Climate Change Disruption of Our Mother the Earth" are vilified as "Deniers" of the Holy Writ of "Science."
This too shall pass.
My only hope is that there is a Muslim faction strong enough and idealistic enough that will conquer the other factions in the Name of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (translated into appropriate Islamic terms).

 

[gsa]

I shall attempt to be a bit more coherent... perhaps?

The article does not "get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy."
Why? Because the author would have to clearly connect the dots to radical Sunni Islam's current origin of incarnation - Saudi Wahhabism.
ALL radical Sunni Muslim sects, such as the ones I mentioned above, are firmly rooted in Saudi Wahhabism.
The author is claiming that ISIS is following "the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail." But, that is only true - according to the current philosophy of Saudi Wahhabism! (Which is 300 years old at worst and has only been dominant for the last 100 years.)
They are NOT following "the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail" based on the understanding and morays of previous Muslim Empires and Caliphates and rulers for the last 1,400 years.
This is the problem that I am addressing - a very short sighted view of history; interpretations and modes of thinking change with time.
It is absolutely pointless to try and claim that ISIS is interpreting Islam's founder as the way it was originally intended!
Every other religion and philosophy on planet Earth has undergone massive change and redefinition over time. And they all have, or have had, their periods of extremism and hatred for all who do not believe in their particular philosophy of the time.
ISIS (and the recent phenomenon of Saudi Wahhabism) is no different.

I think the problem is that the article is addressing something different altogether.

For example, he discusses Wahhabism, and the scholar that he uses as a primary source has discussed the connection thoroughly and publicly. However, I have to disagree with you that all radical Sunnis are sourced in Wahhabism. Hamas is very different from ISIS, and was executing salafist extremists years before ISIS emerged. Sayyid Qutb was not a Wahhabist, even though his ideology overlaps with Wahhabism on key points.

But yes I agree that interpretations and understandings of these texts change over time, as they wrestle with new circumstances and competing or neighboring views. Wood, however, was referencing ISIS' self-understanding that they are applying a "Prophetic methodology," I don't know that he is endorsing the view that they are correctly doing it or are actually establishing a pure form of Islam.

 

[Looncall]

Indeed. Of course! They are destroying their world, and our world, as we write.
However, Man has done this kind of thing based on their "immutable teachings" - forever.
Even today - the religion of the "immutable teachings" of "science" has taken control of wide swathes of humanity. Those who challenge the current soup of the day "Global Warming Climate Change Disruption of Our Mother the Earth" are vilified as "Deniers" of the Holy Writ of "Science."
This too shall pass.
My only hope is that there is a Muslim faction strong enough and idealistic enough that will conquer the other factions in the Name of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (translated into appropriate Islamic terms).

Going by current behavious of muslims, I doubt there are such islamic terms. I see no evidence that muslim societies have ever valued any of those goals.

 

[Unification]

Like this, straight out of the Bible?

If a soul lies with mankind, as he lieth with a mind, both of them have committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death(separation of mind), their actions/guilt shall be upon them.

What does "lie" mean? Why is it pertained to sex?

 

[Augustus]

ALL radical Sunni Muslim sects, such as the ones I mentioned above, are firmly rooted in Saudi Wahhabism.
The author is claiming that ISIS is following "the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail." But, that is only true - according to the current philosophy of Saudi Wahhabism! (Which is 300 years old at worst and has only been dominant for the last 100 years.)

For example, he discusses Wahhabism, and the scholar that he uses as a primary source has discussed the connection thoroughly and publicly. However, I have to disagree with you that all radical Sunnis are sourced in Wahhabism. Hamas is very different from ISIS, and was executing salafist extremists years before ISIS emerged. Sayyid Qutb was not a Wahhabist, even though his ideology overlaps with Wahhabism on key points.

Placing Wahhabism as the root cause of all Sunni radicalism is mistaken. From the Taliban, Jemaah Islamiyah, Haqqani network etc. etc. there are numerous non-Wahabbi groups.

What is true though is that most (all?) violent radical groups have their roots in nationalist/territorial conflicts. Violent Islam grows out of localised political conflicts.

Modern 'jihadism' is also more to do with Qutb than Wahhab, and Qutb create an ideology that was a syncretism of Islam and totalitarian western ideologies, especially Lenninism. Its roots are 20th C rather than 18th.

 

[Moishe3rd]

I think the problem is that the article is addressing something different altogether.

For example, he discusses Wahhabism, and the scholar that he uses as a primary source has discussed the connection thoroughly and publicly. However, I have to disagree with you that all radical Sunnis are sourced in Wahhabism. Hamas is very different from ISIS, and was executing salafist extremists years before ISIS emerged. Sayyid Qutb was not a Wahhabist, even though his ideology overlaps with Wahhabism on key points.

But yes I agree that interpretations and understandings of these texts change over time, as they wrestle with new circumstances and competing or neighboring views. Wood, however, was referencing ISIS' self-understanding that they are applying a "Prophetic methodology," I don't know that he is endorsing the view that they are correctly doing it or are actually establishing a pure form of Islam.

Placing Wahhabism as the root cause of all Sunni radicalism is mistaken. From the Taliban, Jemaah Islamiyah, Haqqani network etc. etc. there are numerous non-Wahabbi groups.

What is true though is that most (all?) violent radical groups have their roots in nationalist/territorial conflicts. Violent Islam grows out of localised political conflicts.

Modern 'jihadism' is also more to do with Qutb than Wahhab, and Qutb create an ideology that was a syncretism of Islam and totalitarian western ideologies, especially Lenninism. Its roots are 20th C rather than 18th.

I do not understand.
Qutb was Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brotherhood; Taliban, Jemaah Islamiyah, Haqqani, etc. all get their ability to create radical; "Jihaddi" Islam from the successful ijtihad of Wahhabi Islam in the conquests of the Saudis.
Without the dissolution of the Ottoman's, which previously crushed Saudi Wahhabism, there is no successful iijtihad of al Saud/ al Wahhab and, all of the various factions of violent Islam become Enemies of the State; of the previous normative Sunni Islam.
That is what went on for the previous 1400 years.
When a new Muslim dynasty arose, it was due to conquering the previous dynasty. It then incorporated its new interpretations of Islamic law and tradition into the new rule. After the initial slaughter of the old dynasty or factions, the new rulers did not allow the kind of extreme violence currently promoted by various factions of the Muslim world. This is how most kingdoms and empires and states of the world have always operated.
When the Ottoman Empire was no more, the Saudis become the de facto Caliphate by virtue of controlling Mecca; Medina; and staggering wealth.
Some Saudis covertly supported the radical, violent factions of Islam throughout the world as long as they did not threaten the House of Saud. They exiled or otherwise exported their own radical factions such as bin Laden.
Again, this is no different from any other absolutist government or state in mankind's history.
The difference today is that every Muslim faction (including the Shia, which have always spun off into new factions and "religions" - such as the current heresy of Iran's Vilayat al Fiqh) takes the successful Saud example of ijtihad and has proclaimed that their particular tinpot Death cult is the ONE and ONLY true Islam.
And (as did Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists, etc. before them), they are destroying themselves in massive factional fighting.

This is not going to happen but - if the Saudis got their own Wahhabist imams to issue fatwas and, enforced them vis a vis the ability to make the Haj, supporting a different interpretation of Islam, based on the Koran and Hadith, that encouraged "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," (metaphorically speaking), the entire Muslim world would change.

 

[ChristineES]

I believe that the members of ISIS are Islam, but not even close to all Muslims are ISIS, quite the opposite. That would be like saying all Christians are like the Westboro Baptist Church. ISIS is not a representative of Islam: That should be the true question.

 

[Augustus]

I do not understand.
Qutb was Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brotherhood; Taliban, Jemaah Islamiyah, Haqqani, etc. all get their ability to create radical; "Jihaddi" Islam from the successful ijtihad of Wahhabi Islam in the conquests of the Saudis..

Based on what evidence precisely?

None come from the Hanbali Madhhab. Wahhabi exporting didn't really start till the 70s anyway. Taliban were largely a product of Pakistan intelligence (Hanifi). Jemaah Islamiya were an offshoot of Darul Islam, an Indonesian anti-colonial movemement from the 40s/50s (Shafi'i), Qutb was a Shafi'i who created a hybrid ideology infused with Western totalitarian political thought.

What has Wahhab got to do with any of this?

 

[gsa]

Based on what evidence precisely?

None come from the Hanbali Madhhab. Wahhabi exporting didn't really start till the 70s anyway. Taliban were largely a product of Pakistan intelligence (Hanifi). Jemaah Islamiya were an offshoot of Darul Islam, an Indonesian anti-colonial movemement from the 40s/50s (Shafi'i), Qutb was a Shafi'i who created a hybrid ideology infused with Western totalitarian political thought.

What has Wahhab got to do with any of this?

It is also possible to overstate the differences, as Saudi Arabia has heavily invested in Wahhabism in South and Southeast Asia for decades now. There is also the matter of cross-pollination: Maududi received plenty of praise from Wahhabists in KSA, was a trustee for the Islamic University of Medina and even sketched out a vision for it. And he was not technically a Wahhabist either, nor even from the Hanbali school (he really had no school and no formal religious training although that did not seem to bother the Saudis). And the deceased co-founder of Jemaah Islamiya, Abdullah Sungkar, established a school in Malaysia that was believed to be linked to the Wahhabists. An Indonesian Islamic boarding school he co-founded in 1972 does teach Wahabbism. Another cofounder of that school, and a member of Jemaah Islamiya, Abu Bakar Baasyir, has pledged to the Islamic State and some of the school's graduates have made their way to ISIS.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

They are not islamic. They kill innocent kuffar civilians and stabb the mujahidiin in the back.
They dont listen to the honourable scholars. They violate the rules of Allah by killing humans weither they are muslims or kuffar.


If isis was islam 999999% of muslims would be isis. Bad news for the world!

 

[Moishe3rd]

It is also possible to overstate the differences, as Saudi Arabia has heavily invested in Wahhabism in South and Southeast Asia for decades now. There is also the matter of cross-pollination: Maududi received plenty of praise from Wahhabists in KSA, was a trustee for the Islamic University of Medina and even sketched out a vision for it. And he was not technically a Wahhabist either, nor even from the Hanbali school (he really had no school and no formal religious training although that did not seem to bother the Saudis). And the deceased co-founder of Jemaah Islamiya, Abdullah Sungkar, established a school in Malaysia that was believed to be linked to the Wahhabists. An Indonesian Islamic boarding school he co-founded in 1972 does teach Wahabbism. Another cofounder of that school, and a member of Jemaah Islamiya, Abu Bakar Baasyir, has pledged to the Islamic State and some of the school's graduates have made their way to ISIS.

Thank you.
And, I am not claiming "direct descent".
I am claiming that the Saudi ijtihad gave "permission to declare" to the rest of the Muslim world.

 

[gsa]

They are not islamic. They kill innocent kuffar civilians and stabb the mujahidiin in the back.
They dont listen to the honourable scholars. They violate the rules of Allah by killing humans weither they are muslims or kuffar.

1. They do allow some unbelievers to live among them, provided they pay the jizya tax. Do you think that is un-Islamic?

2. Is it un-Islamic to take slave concubines from non-Muslim enemies?

3. Who have they stabbed in the back?

4. Who are the honorable scholars?

5. It is un-Islamic to kill other humans, even during military campaigns or for, say, homosexuality or apostasy, under sharia?

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

1. They do allow some unbelievers to live among them, provided they pay the jizya tax. Do you think that is un-Islamic?

2. Is it un-Islamic to take slave concubines from non-Muslim enemies?

3. Who have they stabbed in the back?

4. Who are the honorable scholars?

5. It is un-Islamic to kill other humans, even during military campaigns or for, say, homosexuality or apostasy, under sharia?

Jizyah is only imposed on wealthy kaafir men that dont want to serve in the army. Its not imposed on elderly, sick people, women, children, monks. So jizyah was more for men that had income but didnt want to serve the army of caliphate.

2) there is no slavery. Islam actually encourages to set slaves free, that is regarded as good deed. U failed there, next time better

3) The mujahidiin in syria fighting the nusayris and rejectors

4) the scholars of quran and sunnah according to the understanding of the salaf(the pious three generations of islam)

5) in islamic country ruled by the islamic law a homosexual will be put to death if caught with powerful evidence. As for the apostate, his case is looked on. The apostate that sells informations or the apostate that works with the enemy will be executed. As for the apostate that is not harmful, i believe he falls under " no compulsion in religion" rule.

 

[Debater Slayer]

5) in islamic country ruled by the islamic law a homosexual will be put to death if caught with powerful evidence. As for the apostate, his case is looked on. The apostate that sells informations or the apostate that works with the enemy will be executed. As for the apostate that is not harmful, i believe he falls under " no compulsion in religion" rule.

You are making your religion look sadistic, inhumane, and utterly irrational. Hopefully you realize this when you talk about things like putting homosexuals to death in the name of your religion.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

You are making your religion look sadistic, inhumane, and utterly irrational. Hopefully you realize this when you talk about things like putting homosexuals to death in the name of your religion.

Debater, the blame of the blamers is not to be feared. This is how the blessed generation dealt with homosexuality. Its a severe crime that requires severe punishment.
But witnesses are must. Persons cannot be punished just for assumption.For example a person cannot be punished just because he walks or dresses gay. Sodomy act must be seen by witnesses or the two gays lying in bed naked. Such are clear evidences.

For the view of apologists u are talking to the wrong person.

Besides homosexuals are smart. Iam sure they wont reveal themselves in a country where such law exist.


Saudi Arabia is perhaps the most gayest country in the world but their gay males hide themselves, not revealing.