# “ISIL isn’t Islamic”???? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2014, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286 "2014-09-12T14:10:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/81 "2014-09-13T03:20:22Z")
The “no true Scotsman” stuff reminds me why I hate that “I’ve memorized the list of logical fallacies” mode of arguing on the internet. In politics this is called defining the opponent. It’s a rhetorical tactic not an appeal to logic. Since Obama wants to highlight a split it’s certainly not illogical to proclaim “Here’s where you split”. ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/82 "2014-09-13T07:55:35Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The problem with self-identification is that it can make the term itself meaningless. If anyone can call themselves Muslim, then how can you make statements about what Islam believes? How can you discuss the religion at all? You talk about trends, texts, figures, movements, etc. The urge to define a religious identity for others usually ends up being an oppressive venture in the long run, more useful for activism than scholarship, and it marginalizes lots of sincere people. President Obama was obviously not intending to reflect in a nuanced fashion on the nature of religious identity or make qualified theological statements about Islam. He wanted to isolate IS and prevent American Muslims (and people commonly mistaken for Muslims) from facing yet more undeserved guilt-by-association and discrimination. His statement was problematic, yes, but he is not in a position to make much better ones. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/83 "2014-09-13T14:10:31Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Also, ignoring all this, Obama didn’t lie, even if he does categorize ISIS/ISIL as Islamic. He made it clear what meant with his statement. He was making a rhetorical point, like when someone says that Christian Scientists are neither Christian nor scientist. > > A lie requires an attempt to deceive, and the context indicates that he clearly was not intending to deceive. His comment only makes sense if you know that ISIL/ISIS claim to be Islamic. > > The truth vs. a lie is a false dichotomy. This is a distinction worth making. While I may think Obama might not be handling this correctly, or even thinking about it correctly, I agree that the accusation of “lie” is misplaced. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2014, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/84 "2014-09-13T14:17:42Z")
Just an opinion on the pedophile catholic priests… There is no doubt that the priests were/are Catholic. But their sexual abuse of boys has ZERO support in Catholicism. They were a bunch of pedophiles who just happened to be Catholic. The church’s wrongheaded attempts at hiding the problem is a different, perhaps even worse transgression, but not relevant to the misdeeds of the pedophile priests. On the other hand, Phelps and his crowd conduct their idiocy in the name of their Christian God, and can point to (grossly distorted) biblical support for their religious position. So I think the two are very different. ISIS, or ISIL, are a clear version of a religious group acting in the name of religion, like Phelps. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/85 "2014-09-14T02:39:51Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, there’s quite a bit of evidence, such as his obsession with _The Turner Diaries_, a very CI-centric book; it’s just generally pretended otherwise since in an overwhelmingly Christian country like America most people prefer to pretend that Christianity can do no wrong. The Turner Diaries isn’t a CI-centric book, and it’s author, William Luther Pierce, was never Christian Identity. Pierce was a self identified “cosmotheist”, a religion he made up to avoid paying taxes, which said basically that humanity was evolving into a superior form of life, and that the most evolved form of life is white men, and that eventually, through eugenics and genocide of the other races, humanity will evolve into supermen. The Turner Diaries themselves avoid much specific religious talk. It’s mostly torture porn about killing blacks and Jews. Both Pierce and McVeigh were antigovernment racists, but they were secular antigovernment racists. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/86 "2014-09-14T04:03:56Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > The Turner Diaries isn’t a CI-centric book, and it’s author, William Luther Pierce, was never Christian Identity. Pierce was a self identified “cosmotheist”, a religion he made up to avoid paying taxes, which said basically that humanity was evolving into a superior form of life, and that the most evolved form of life is white men, and that eventually, through eugenics and genocide of the other races, humanity will evolve into supermen. The Turner Diaries themselves avoid much specific religious talk. It’s mostly torture porn about killing blacks and Jews. Both Pierce and McVeigh were antigovernment racists, but they were secular antigovernment racists. I have to say that it is correct to say that Pierce was not much of a believer, but he is on the record defending CI people that as according to him “most of them are not violent and dangerous. They’re a bit more tightly focused on their religion than most mainstream Christians are, but other than that they’re pretty normal people.” He then did go on a tirade of how “Jews and leftists” did silence the “normal” CI preachers on an article of his called “Feasting on the Sheep” that was originally at the National Alliance, never mind that many on CI that had a running with the law was because they took the law into their own hands. No link as I found that at the Racist Metapedia. My impression is that he considered CI their friends and one example of people he and his group should get closer as they were also an enemy of their enemy. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/87 "2014-09-14T04:27:08Z")
> [@ILikeForeignLanguages](#): > > Well, the reason the President said that ISIL is not Islamic is because according to him, “No religion promotes the murder of innocents.” However, the only way to know what a religion promotes or doesn’t promote is to read the holy book of that religion from cover to cover. I’ve never read the Qu’ran, but I’ve heard people say that that the Qu’ran says in several places that Muslims can kill “infidels” for refusing to convert to Islam. If this is true, then President Obama is wrong and ISIL is most definitely Islamic. I assume you are also aware that according to the Quran that neither Christians nor Jews are considered “infidels”? ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/88 "2014-09-14T04:54:12Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I assume you are also aware that according to the Quran that neither Christians nor Jews are considered “infidels”? I’m sure that’s of great comfort to the Yazidi. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/89 "2014-09-14T06:14:18Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > I’m sure that’s of great comfort to the Yazidi. No, it’s not, but Christian and Jewish theology is at least as noxious when it comes to those who don’t believe in the God of Abraham and until recently the Yazidis were treated vastly better I the Islamic world than they would have been in the Christian world. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/90 "2014-09-14T09:06:06Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I assume you are also aware that according to the Quran that neither Christians nor Jews are considered “infidels”? I’m not sure that is of any comfort to those who are not any of the above (atheists etc.). By the definition above we are still considered “infidels” are we not? In fact a very nice colleague of mine who happens to be a muslim said exactly that. He has been brought up in a moderate household but was clear that I was an atheist, was different and was an “infidel”. He manages to disregard that fact for the purpose of day to day interactions but it is unsettling to be labelled like this. ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/91 "2014-09-14T09:16:21Z")
> [@ILikeForeignLanguages](#): > > Well, the reason the President said that ISIL is not Islamic is because according to him, “No religion promotes the murder of innocents.” However, the only way to know what a religion promotes or doesn’t promote is to read the holy book of that religion from cover to cover. I’ve never read the Qu’ran, but I’ve heard people say that that the Qu’ran says in several places that Muslims can kill “infidels” for refusing to convert to Islam. If this is true, then President Obama is wrong and ISIL is most definitely Islamic. This standard would make it difficult to tell what Christianity in 100AD promoted, or Buddhism today. It also wouldn’t say much conclusively about the majority of Christians who belong to churches that hold to some form of apostolic succession. Or to (Sunni) Muslims who have among other things the Hadith and a discursive scholarly tradition, or to Ismaili Shia Muslims who have the Aga Khan, etc. etc. Indeed, if you just read the Qur’an, you would not know that Muslims widely believe that 5 daily prayers are required. The Qur’an itself only mentions 3. Saying “no religion promotes the murder of innocents” is kind of like saying “no store allows stealing.” The Aztec religion certainly promoted human sacrifice, but that they would characterize it as “murder of innocents” is something I doubt. Similarly, the development of Western Christian Just War theory at least from Augustine until now has grown a lot in its protections and demands, but I wouldn’t say Augustine promoted the murder of innocents. Similarly, in Islamic discourse, violence, even brutal violence against what we would call non-combatants, can be ‘justified’ in certain times and places, but that’s just the point - it has to be justified within a framework. That framework is not just a framework of law, but a framework of policy. The destruction of pre-modern Islamic political structures with the forced arrival of ‘modernity’ - and with the preservation of Islamic legal thought - has unleashed a tremendous amount of chaos of which ISIS is only a part. The big thing to think about with regards to ISIS and to other anti-establishment groups claiming an Islamic identity is this issue of authority, legitimacy and policy. It’s not so much what they do (disputed though that may be) but who they are to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/92 "2014-09-14T09:53:36Z")
Of course no religion calls for the murder of innocents. If the religion calls for their murder, they aren’t innocents. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/93 "2014-09-15T20:21:30Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Of course no religion calls for the murder of innocents. If the religion calls for their murder, they aren’t innocents. Good point. In this case, the argument from the religion is that the people in question are _not_ innocent, they are _guilty_ of unbelief, blasphemy, unrepentant sinning, etc. and must pay for their crimes against the applicable deity. It’s like NAMBLA complaining that the US government is persecuting innocent child molesters who did nothing wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/94 "2014-09-15T20:55:56Z")
[richarddawkins.net: Sleepwalking Toward Armageddon](https://richarddawkins.net/2014/09/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon/) > [@](#): > > Understanding and criticizing the doctrine of Islam—and finding some way to inspire Muslims to reform it—is one of the most important challenges the civilized world now faces. But the task isn’t as simple as discrediting the false doctrines of Muslim “extremists,” because most of their views are not false by the light of scripture. A hatred of infidels is arguably the central message of the Koran. The reality of martyrdom and the sanctity of armed jihad are about as controversial under Islam as the resurrection of Jesus is under Christianity. It is not an accident that millions of Muslims recite the shahadah or make pilgrimage to Mecca. Neither is it an accident that horrific footage of infidels and apostates being decapitated has become a popular form of pornography throughout the Muslim world. Each of these practices, including this ghastly method of murder, find explicit support in scripture. > > But there is now a large industry of obfuscation designed to protect Muslims from having to grapple with these truths. Our humanities and social science departments are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other diverse fields, who claim that where Muslim intolerance and violence are concerned, nothing is ever what it seems. Above all, these experts claim that one can’t take Islamists and jihadists at their word: Their incessant declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy are nothing more than a mask concealing their real motivations. What are their real motivations? Insert here the most abject hopes and projections of secular liberalism: How would you feel if Western imperialists and their mapmakers had divided your lands, stolen your oil, and humiliated your proud culture? Devout Muslims merely want what everyone wants—political and economic security, a piece of land to call home, good schools for their children, a little leisure to enjoy the company of friends. Unfortunately, most of my fellow liberals appear to believe this. In fact, to not accept this obscurantism as a deep insight into human nature and immediately avert one’s eyes from the teachings of Islam is considered a form of bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/95 "2014-09-15T23:47:41Z")
Dawkins, for once, is correct in his incision of organized religion. He says what the liberal intelligentsia (summed up perfectly in Obama’s comments) are too piss-their-pants scared to say. I do, however, hope he sees the mile-long gulf between modern Christianity and modern Islam, and doesn’t revert back to “those evil Christians (from 5 centuries ago)” As a fellow atheist, it is important to see the shades of grey in organized religion. Not all prophets, and scripture, are created equal. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/96 "2014-09-16T01:28:06Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Dawkins, for once, is correct in his incision of organized religion. > > He says what the liberal intelligentsia (summed up perfectly in Obama’s comments) are too piss-their-pants scared to say. > > I do, however, hope he sees the mile-long gulf between modern Christianity and modern Islam, and doesn’t revert back to “those evil Christians (from 5 centuries ago)” > > As a fellow atheist, it is important to see the shades of grey in organized religion. Not all prophets, and scripture, are created equal. Richard Dawkins didn’t write that, Sam Harris did. I’d like to see a cite for his claim that more British Muslims have joined ISIS than the British defense forces. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/97 "2014-09-16T02:08:51Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I’d like to see a cite for his claim that more British Muslims have joined ISIS than the British defense forces. USA Today and Newsweek seem to think so. > **[More British Muslims fight for Islamic State than Britain](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/21/islamic-state-americans-british/14384045/)** > > British officials estimate that up to 800 British Muslims fight for the Islamic State. > **['Twice as Many' British Muslims Fighting for ISIS Than in UK Armed Forces -...](https://www.newsweek.com/twice-many-british-muslims-fighting-isis-armed-forces-265865)** > > There are now at least 1,500 British Muslims fighting for Islamic State, according to a British MP ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/98 "2014-09-16T02:31:06Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > USA Today and Newsweek seem to think so. > > [More British Muslims fight for Islamic State than Britain](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/21/islamic-state-americans-british/14384045/) > > ['Twice as Many' British Muslims Fighting for ISIS Than in UK Armed Forces - Newsweek](http://www.newsweek.com/twice-many-british-muslims-fighting-isis-armed-forces-265865) Those are estimates and the British foreign office freely admits that numbers are hard to determine actual numbers. The real story to me is that British Muslims are so grossly underrepresented in the British military forces. Meaning no disrespect to the British members of this board, but it’s not much of a testament to Britain’s integrating them into society. Certainly in the US minorities aren’t remotely so underrepresented. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/99 "2014-09-16T03:04:18Z")
As to the OP: ISIL is an Islamic organisation, period. How (in)correctly they interpret their religion is another thing, but if you belive in Allah, Muhammad, 5 prayers, Halal, etc., no matter how shitty you behave as a human being you’re a Muslim . “They’re not really X” is a common weasel phrase to avoid saying something that’ll get it you in trouble. As was said, the Sapnish Inquisition was a Catholic institution. We maybe debate how fatihful, according to the social and theological mores of their time, they were to Catholic teaching. Finally. The president of the U.S. (or any country) is not the go-to guy for theological arguments in general and specially in a religion he does not profess. I would not care for Obama taking a position on the Filioque or the Homoousion/Homoiousion debate. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/100 "2014-09-16T03:11:56Z")
Just a question. When and where did the President say this? Honest question. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286.md?page=6)