You know what’s dummer than attacking Muslims for what ISIS does? Attacking things named Isis:
Philadelphia? Philadelphia ain’t Shi’ite.
It’s not Islamic, it’s just anti-everything-else. All the more reason to take them out of the gene pool.
My general rule of thumb is that if a person says they are Christian/Islamic/Buddhist/whatever, it is not my right to refuse them that label. All too many groups have been and are being discriminated against and persecuted by the mindset that you can define people out of a religious identity that they claim. This is what ISIS is doing, after all.
Calling ISIS’s behavior “Islamic” is a bit more tricky on a practical level, since the issue that makes ISIS radical, and self-consciously very far out of the mainstream of real-life Islamic thought and society, is not really about their behavior as such but rather their claim to have authority to be behaving the way they are behaving. Since the vast majority of Muslims – even ones that have very nasty, ISIS-like views on a range of topics – reject ISIS’s claimed authority to define proper behavior, it’s not reasonable to look to ISIS to see what Muslims believe or do, OR what they don’t believe or do. If people’s purpose in calling ISIS’s behavior “Islamic” or “not Islamic” is to try to make some point about Muslims in general, they are not adding to the conversation.
I haven’t participated much in these threads, but I should say that when I have peeked at the threads here lately, Ramira is most consistently making sense. I appreciate her contributions.
Ah, but they don’t. “Their strength is their god”, not Allah, as per Habukkuk. Therefore, not Muslim.
It is a pretty open-and-shut case, really.
I agree with the general sentiment here that this argument boils down to a No True Scotsman argument. Being more familiar with various Christian sects, I think it’s like arguing that WBC, or people who kill abortion doctors aren’t true Christians.
I think the only time this sort of argument holds any water is if the universally held beliefs of the faith are in question. So, for instance, if someone claims to be a Christian, but doesn’t believe that Jesus was the son of God and didn’t die for our sins, I think there’s a legitimate argument that they’re not Christians. They’re need to make a pretty strong scriptural argument for why they’re still Christians while not believing certain things that everyone else is in agreement the scripture says. In this case, ISIS does believe Muhammed is a prophet of God, they follow all the basic stuff like the five pillars, and while there’s arguments over their interpretations of the scripture, they do have their beliefs based in their interpretation of the scripture. Obviously, most Muslims disagree with them, but that’s not all that much different than the Christians who have used the Bible to justify slavery and racism, violence against abortion doctors, anti-Gay laws, or going back into the past, the Inquisition or the Crusades.
Couple of points:
-
While I’m pretty sure Habukkuk is acknowledged as a prophet in the Islamic reckoning, mainstream Islamic theology relatively quickly (maybe 100-150 years or so, by the time Ibn Hashem did his editing of Ibn Ishaq IIRC) came to a consensus that previous revealed scriptures had been corrupted and could not be taken as authoritative, especially not if you can make an argument using Islamic sources.
-
Connecting earthly success to validation of God’s support for your leadership is very important to traditional Islamic kingship, reflecting in military victories but also things like, not having your subjects starve. They wouldn’t argue that “strength is their God” but rather that God gives them strength. ISIS has tried to set up the trappings of a state with taxes, courts, etc. as part of a way to claim a connection to that tradition.
Quoted for irony.
I don’t want to argue with Ramira. She is a Muslim from the Maghreb, and I want to know her point of view. She is closer to the action in the Middle East than any other poster on this board, as far as I can tell, so I find her postings very informative.
This, on the other hand, I find quite patronizing. It is not my job in life to tell other people what they really know or really believe, when they have denied it. In fact, I am suspicious of people who think they themselves really know what other people think or believe. Such people worry me.
Intent is critical. ISIS acts as it does explicitly in the name of Islam, rooted in (distorted) Islamic scripture, to spread Islam across the region.
They are as Islamic as a group of Christians who went on a conquest to spread Christianity are Christian. Of which historical examples abound.
Whether historical groups were truly Christian or not is a subject for another thread. But I think religious ideologies are defined enough such that we can determine in some cases that a particular group is Doing It So Wrong that we can say they don’t fit their group identification.
ISIS fits this description within Islam. They claim to be Islamic, and this helps them build temporal power. But- and the prophets are on my side on this- they aren’t really Islamic. Their actions reveal this.
Do you really think, in her heart of hearts, Ramira feels that ISIS express the… Spirit of Islam, if you will. Do you really believe that? I truly doubt it. Though of course I cannot speak for Ramira, I like her and respect her as a poster, and her own words on the subject would of course supercede mine re: her perspective on things. But geez, Islam is better than that…
This is a question that exists simultaneously in several domains:
-
Between Muslims, concerning areas like correct interpretation and praxis, the legitimacy of communal/state leaders, etc.
-
Between non-Muslims who want to influence how non-Muslim societies and states should act toward Muslims.
-
Between scholars, religious thinkers, and other layabouts who are contemplating what it means to identify as part of a religion.
Among #1, there is the camp of people sympathetic to ISIS who would answer yes, and the much larger camp that is not sympathetic to ISIS but who might answer yes or no depending on how the question is phrased, their philosophical worldview, etc.
Among #2, broadly speaking there is a camp that is hostile to Muslims that would say yes, a camp ambivalent to friendly to Muslims who might answer yes or no depending on how the question is phrased, and a camp that is actively friendly to Muslims and generally answers no.
Among #3, there are people who see religion as more of a claimed identity (like me) and would generally answer yes. There is a camp that sees religion as a kind of objective tradition that people embody and they are wishy-washy (I’m biased) about yes or no.
So there are at least three major conversations going on around this question, with different motivations, different values, and different assumptions. In the real world, they all end up muddled together. And this is why discussing this topic usually ends up with people talking past each other and getting frustrated.
As a non-Muslim, I don’t think I have the right to decide who is or isn’t a follower of Islam.
I think all these quotes from the old nut utterly describe America. And I’m not being insincere or snide. Nor blaming America. They are what they are.
We all know what you think.
Well yeah, they do. You don’t get to argue with what you decide to believe another poster “feels in their heart of hearts”; you can only argue with what they actually say.
[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive]
But geez, Islam is better than that…
[/QUOTE]
No religion is entitled to be defined only by the best, or even only by the majority, of its adherents, any more than it can be defined only by the worst of its adherents.
Yes, most of Islam is way, way, way, way, way better than ISIS, just as most of Christianity is way, way, way, way, way better than the Ugandan Lord’s Resistance Army. But that doesn’t mean that ISIS isn’t part of Islam, or that the LRA isn’t part of Christianity. Religions are a hell of a big tent.
But if we just call them “the State,” people will think we’re talking about the atrocities of that sketch show.
I think it’s less about a “right” than about knowledge. Islamic scholars can make claims about what is and is not Islamic. Our Christian and closet atheist government leaders cannot credibly make those claims. And since this is about a difference in religious opinion that is being “debated” with bullets as well as fatwas, who is winning also matters. The fact that most Germans were not Nazis didn’t matter, and if ISIS rules the Muslim world, it won’t matter that most Muslims don’t support ISIS. If the 10% cow the 90%, then the 90% has given their tacit support in every way that actually matters to the outside world.
The leaders of ISIS may be Moslem but - as always - it’s really about power.