# “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:** 6
**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 16, 2014, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/101 "2014-09-16T03:30:20Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Just a question. When and where did the President say this? Honest question. His remarks on ISIL in the presidential address on September 10th. > **[Statement by the President on ISIL](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/10/statement-president-isil-1)** > > State Floor 9:01 P.M. EDT > [@](#): > > Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. We can’t erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today. And that’s why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL – which calls itself the “Islamic State.” > > Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents. And the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way. > > In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. And in acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists – Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff. ---
**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, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/102 "2014-09-16T03:36:48Z")
> [@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) I forgot to add “thanks for the links.” ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/103 "2014-09-16T03:41:48Z")
Just wanted to point out that in the transcript he had “Islamic” in quotes - which I took to mean he was speaking figuratively, not literally. And while it might be accurate to call them “not of the Islamic faith” it does seem very reasonable to try and create distance from “going to war against muslims” - so in that sense perhaps it would be good to cut some slack ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/104 "2014-09-16T03:43:08Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > 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. Here’s the representation of minorities in the British armed forces(excluding around 4000 Gurkhas) ([https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_data/file/310468/quarterly\_personnel\_report\_apr14.pdf](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310468/quarterly_personnel_report_apr14.pdf)) > [@](#): > > The number of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) personnel serving in the UK Regular Forces was 11,200 (representing 7.1 per cent) at 1 April 2014. Britain, according to wiki, is around 87% white. So minorities are 13% in population, and 7% in the army. Underrepresented, but not so egregious that it causes me to be suspicious of the British armed forces. British Muslims are ~4.5% of the population(wiki), and 0.3% of the armed forces(if the numbers quoted in this thread are correct). This set of facts does not immediately lead me to conclude that Britain is at fault in integrating its minorities, particularly the Muslim one, especially as related to serving members of its armed forces. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/105 "2014-09-16T03:59:24Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The ISIS crowd can claim to be Muslims, but they definitely aren’t following the faith. If you claim to follow a religion but refuse to adhere to its principles, are you still one of the faithful? In my opinion, no. Who decides? My very poor understanding is that Mohammed was effectively in charge of an army in the latter part of his life, which army engaged in raids and a degree of conquest. I’m sure that is at least sufficient for ISIS to be able to claim to be his followers while doing similar (if somewhat worse) things. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/106 "2014-09-16T04:05:38Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > 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 . Where does one find the authoritative definition of what it means to be a Muslim? How do you come to the conclusion that what you listed - Allah, Muhammad, 5 prayer, halal - to be the sine qua non of being Muslim, but other attributes - maybe growing a beard, or not slaying random people - are not important attributes? Yes, I actually want to know how you arrived at that definition; it is an honest question. ---
**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 16, 2014, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/107 "2014-09-16T04:17:51Z")
For one thing, pretty much every Muslim group agrees that saying the Shahada makes you Muslim and that the five pillars are required of every Muslim. It’s pretty much as close to consensus as you get in Islam. ---
**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 16, 2014, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/108 "2014-09-16T04:22:43Z")
I guess my question is, why is it so hard to believe that some Muslims believe that they have a duty to forcibly convert others to Islam and set up an Islamic state? Why is it necessary to portray ISIL as “unique in their brutality”, with “no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.” How does that benefit anybody? ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/109 "2014-09-16T05:09:57Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I guess my question is, why is it so hard to believe that some Muslims believe that they have a duty to forcibly convert others to Islam and set up an Islamic state? Why is it necessary to portray ISIL as “unique in their brutality”, with “no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.” How does that benefit anybody? I agree that in the long run it isn’t beneficial. But in the short-term: Governments benefit by granting legitimacy only to interpretations of Islam that accept them or at least don’t cause too much trouble. Muslims in America benefit to the extent that people don’t associate them with ISIS just because they are Muslims. People who are commonly mistaken as Muslims by idiots, including Sikhs, non-Muslim Arabs, apostates, and Orthodox priests also share in this benefit to some degree. Traditional Muslim community leaders benefit by delegitimizing non-practicing, reformist or heterodox movements and individuals and casting them as being the real source of violence and perversion. and so on. In general, public recitation of the Shahada and accepting the 5 Pillars are held to be all that is needed to “be Muslim” to those adhering to the discursive scholarly tradition. Still, this is complicated on the ground (especially when you consider Shiism) and there are groups of people today who claim to be Muslim but who are generally not held by the mainstream to be Muslims because of their foundational beliefs, e.g. the Ahmadiyya. I’m too young to remember the 1980s but I am curious to know whether the Mujahideen were lambasted by anyone in the US at that time, either politicians or scholars or activists. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/110 "2014-09-16T05:21:21Z")
> [@nani](#): > > Still, this is complicated on the ground (especially when you consider Shiism) and there are groups of people today who claim to be Muslim but who are generally not held by the mainstream to be Muslims because of their foundational beliefs, e.g. the Ahmadiyya. And look where trying to decide who you can call a Muslim and who you cannot has got them. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/111 "2014-09-16T05:46:19Z")
And why is it difficult to understand that you would want to be distancing the terrorist organisation you are about to go to war with from Islam? Why would it be surprising that Obama wants to specifically say he is not going to war with Islam? While, at worst he may be factually wrong and at best he has no authority to make any such judgement or declaration, aren’t his motivations perfectly clear, and isn’t what he is trying to achieve something we can all get behind? Of course, if you would rather that the US is about to go to war against Islam, and start a clash of cultures - then I would have to wonder at what you are trying to get out of the discussion and why. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/112 "2014-09-16T07:04:37Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > 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)” He does: > [@](#): > > Despite all the obvious barbarism in the Old Testament, and the dangerous eschatology of the New, it is relatively easy for Jews and Christians to divorce religion from politics and secular ethics. A single line in Matthew—“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”—largely accounts for why the West isn’t still hostage to theocracy. The Koran contains a few lines that could be equally potent—for instance, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256)—but these sparks of tolerance are easily snuffed out. Transforming Islam into a truly benign faith will require a miracle of re-interpretation. And a few intrepid reformers, such as Maajid Nawaz, are doing their best to accomplish it. > [@bengangmo](#): > > And why is it difficult to understand that you would want to be distancing the terrorist organisation you are about to go to war with from Islam? > > Why would it be surprising that Obama wants to specifically say he is not going to war with Islam? You can say “We are not at war with Islam, we are at war with ISIL.” without pretending that ISIL is not a subset of Islam. To think otherwise is absurd; it’s like saying we have to pretend ISIL is not human, to avoid the accusation that we are at war with humanity. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/113 "2014-09-16T07:09:07Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > He does: > > You can say “We are not at war with Islam, we are at war with ISIL.” without pretending that ISIL is not a subset of Islam. To think otherwise is absurd; it’s like saying we have to pretend ISIL is not human, to avoid the accusation that we are at war with humanity. So in other words - rather than give benefit of doubt, you want this to be seen as a war against Islam? You want your president to be seen as taking on a whole religion? ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/114 "2014-09-16T09:15:32Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > So in other words - rather than give benefit of doubt, you want this to be seen as a war against Islam? > > You want your president to be seen as taking on a whole religion? Grumman quite clearly said ‘subset’ in his/her post. > [@Grumman](#): > > He does: > > You can say “We are not at war with Islam, we are at war with ISIL.” without pretending that ISIL is not a subset of Islam. To think otherwise is absurd; it’s like saying we have to pretend ISIL is not human, to avoid the accusation that we are at war with humanity. At the same time, I can easily see a leader making the rhetorical statement. “These acts have not been committed by human beings. Humanity requires compassion blah blah blah”, and nobody would be up in arms about how stupid a statement that was. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/115 "2014-09-16T09:56:31Z")
To me, this is just another example of our churchgoing leaders trying to tell us what Islam really is. The Bush administration was even worse about it. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/116 "2014-09-16T10:29:32Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > At the same time, I can easily see a leader making the rhetorical statement. “These acts have not been committed by human beings. Humanity requires compassion blah blah blah”, and nobody would be up in arms about how stupid a statement that was. Trying to make out that your opponents are not human does not have a good track record. The results are bad enough when the President pretends the enemy are “unlawful combatants”, without declaring that human rights do not apply to them. ---
**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 16, 2014, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/117 "2014-09-16T11:16:17Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > And why is it difficult to understand that you would want to be distancing the terrorist organisation you are about to go to war with from Islam? > > Why would it be surprising that Obama wants to specifically say he is not going to war with Islam? I’m not saying that at all. Obviously we’re not “going to war with Islam”. I’m just saying that ISIS/ISIL is a nasty enough group without going out of your way to demonize them. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/118 "2014-09-16T13:38:55Z")
It does serve to demonize them but that’s not the intent when our leaders say dumb things like that. It’s propaganda, only this time it’s meant to avoid demonizing Muslims in the eyes of the American people. But it does have the effect of demonizing the extremists even more, at least if we’re looking at politicians’ statements as actually meaning anything logical. if we free ourselves from that burden and recognize that 99% of what comes out of politicians’ mouths is basically equivalent to corporate advertising, then we don’t need to think too hard about it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/119 "2014-09-16T13:53:12Z")
ISIL is doing a fine job of demonizing themselves, without anybody else’s help, wouldn’tcha say? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2014, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286/120 "2014-09-16T13:54:40Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > [richarddawkins.net: Sleepwalking Toward Armageddon](https://richarddawkins.net/2014/09/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon/) What a hack. The central premise of Sam Harris’s argument is this: “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.” Is arguably? Ok, what’s the argument? Are we to find it in the next sentence, which tells us that the “reality of martyrdom” and “sanctity of armed jihad” are widely accepted? What do either of those concepts mean? He phrases things just vaguely enough to reinforce the conclusions of people who already agree with him without actually making any testable claims at all. Do most Muslims accept “the reality of martyrdom?” I have no idea, since that’s about as mealy-mouthed a phrase as you can imagine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/isil-isn-t-islamic/698286.md?page=7)