“ISIL isn’t Islamic”????

[adaher]

A related interesting nugget from the President:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/world/middleeast/paths-to-war-then-and-now-haunt-obama.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMedia&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

If he had been “an adviser to ISIS,” Mr. Obama added, he would not have killed the hostages but released them and pinned notes on their chests saying, “Stay out of here; this is none of your business.” Such a move, he speculated, might have undercut support for military intervention.

I realize that us modern Westerners don’t like to think this way, but it’s time to drop the PC nonsense and simply realize the fact that “They are not like us.” They do not think the way we do. They are alien to us. Of COURSE what the President said would have been a better idea. But as they say in their own words, “You love life. We love death.” Take them at their word.

If there was ever an enemy that deserved to be dehumanized, it’s ISIS, Al Qaeda, and their ilk. It doesn’t hurt that in fact they have lost their humanity. It’s not just propaganda. Or maybe I"m being optimistic and at our core this is actually what humanity is. Maybe we’re the fakers, kinda like how a tiger trained to ride a bicycle isn’t being a tiger. A tiger that rips you limb from limb is being a tiger.

[Princhester]

@adaher

I realize that us modern Westerners don’t like to think this way, but it’s time to drop the PC nonsense and simply realize the fact that “They are not like us.” They do not think the way we do. They are alien to us. Of COURSE what the President said would have been a better idea. But as they say in their own words, “You love life. We love death.” Take them at their word.

Sure and “Born to Kill” and “When I kill all I feel is the recoil” are slogans we should take at their word too.

Dehumanising the enemy is pretty standard Kool-Aid, drink up.

[adaher]

Their actions do it without the need for propaganda. If anything, they WANT us to think that way. They live to shock the world with their savagery.

[Princhester]

@adaher

Their actions do it without the need for propaganda. If anything, they WANT us to think that way. They live to shock the world with their savagery.

You’re talking about My Lai here, right? Though I’m damned if I can figure out how bringing that up helps your position.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

Not reading this thread because it’ll make me vomit.

Many of the very same people who point and scream at Obama for his comment would have been the first to say, when presented with the hateful rhetoric of the Westboro Baptist Church, that they’re not Christian.

They might have meant that they didn’t represent the teachings of Christ well.

They may have meant that they were extremists whose views were out of step with that of mainstream Christianity.

They might have meant that they wouldn’t be welcome in their own churches.

There’s a lot of things that they could have meant when they said it. Regardless, everyone except the most religion-hating atheists pretty much understood what they meant and didn’t nitpick. And they were assholes.

ISIS is not Islamic in the same way that Westboro isn’t Christian. Is it possible to get any clearer than this?

[Monty]

Well put, John_Stamos’_Left_Ear. The way I heard it and recall seeing it, the Prez was saying that IS is not Islam. In other words, all of Islam is not IS.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

ISIS is not Islamic in the same way that Westboro isn’t Christian. Is it possible to get any clearer than this?

Yes it is possible to be clearer and you should probably try.

Who decides if they are Christian or not? by what criteria? on what authority?

[Captain_Amazing]

@adaher

If there was ever an enemy that deserved to be dehumanized, it’s ISIS, Al Qaeda, and their ilk. It doesn’t hurt that in fact they have lost their humanity. It’s not just propaganda. Or maybe I"m being optimistic and at our core this is actually what humanity is. Maybe we’re the fakers, kinda like how a tiger trained to ride a bicycle isn’t being a tiger. A tiger that rips you limb from limb is being a tiger.

Because killing people with a different ideology or religion is something that humans don’t do, right? That’s not human at all?

[Princhester]

@Novelty_Bobble

Who decides if they are Christian or not? by what criteria? on what authority?

You completely miss the point. The point is not whether they could be regarded as Christian in some way (or the opposite). Of course they could. In other contexts I could and have argued that there is a stunning lack of consensus as to what it is to be Christian.

But the point Obama (and John Stamos’ Left Ear, and Monty) are making is that ISIL don’t represent Muslims as a whole, or a mainstream Muslim point of view, just as Westboro don’t represent Christians as a whole, or represent a mainstream Christian point of view. These are objectively verifiable statements, based on simple statistics.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Princhester

You completely miss the point. The point is not whether they could be regarded as Christian in some way (or the opposite). Of course they could. In other contexts I could and have argued that there is a stunning lack of consensus as to what it is to be Christian.

But the point Obama (and John Stamos’ Left Ear, and Monty) are making is that ISIL don’t represent Muslims as a whole, or a mainstream Muslim point of view, just as Westboro don’t represent Christians as a whole, or represent a mainstream Christian point of view. These are objectively verifiable statements, based on simple statistics.

Then there really wasn’t much of a point at all as any reasonable person would agree that the most extreme of your faith do not define your faith as a whole.

John Stamos’ Left Ear seemed to be going further and suggesting they aren’t christians or muslims. If that was not the intention then my question was irrelevant.

[adaher]

Actually, he just said they aren’t Islamic, although you’re argument is the argument I believe he was trying to get across.

As for whether they represent Muslims as a whole, no one does. Too much diversity within that faith for that to be possible. Now mainstream, what do you define as mainstream? Phelps’ church certainly isn’t mainstream, but ISIL has a much bigger following than Westboro. ISIL can better be compared to the Jehovahs Witnesses in terms of popularity within Islam.

[mcysr]

@BobLibDem

If a guy proclaims to be a devout Catholic and starts shooting up a bar, can he still claim to be a devout Catholic? He can try, but he’s demonstrated that he is not adhering to the faith to which he claims. 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.

I think there is ample evidence that they are exactly following the teachings of Mohammed.

[CarnalK]

@mcysr

I think there is ample evidence that they are exactly following the teachings of Mohammed.

Come on. It’s not like Mohammed went out conquering territory and destroying pagan churches.

[Kobal2]

@CarnalK

Come on. It’s not like Mohammed went out conquering territory and destroying pagan churches.

Not all pagan churches. For one reason or another, the Zoroastrians got a pass.

Maybe because they were too big to smash (I honestly have no idea how many were left from the crushing of the Persian Empire by Alexander followed by expansion+evangelism by the Romans & Greeks). Maybe because Muhammad figured they were one of the good ones. Maybe because the precepts of Zoroastrianism are not altogether different from/compatible with those of Islam & Arabian myths. Your guess is as good as mine.

But the fact itself is indisputable.

Then again, I mean, the early Romans (and to some extent the early Greeks) were pretty unique in their synchretistic approach to religion and imperialism - and even that would change radically when both halves of the Empire made Christianism mandatory. You can’t synchretize with a One True God anyway. Jus’ dun’ work. You can appropriate, but that’s a different concept.

Anyway, the point is : everywhere else, and every other culture I’ve studied in any kind of depth, the first thing they did upon conquering some new territory was wreck every sacred site and, if possible, annihilate the local history. Makes pacifying the place much easier, as the next generations will have fuck all to go by and identify themselves with besides “part of the X Empire, as we’ve always been”.

Hell, the Christians did so too, to more people, and until much later - what do you think the crusades against heresy were about ? Efforts in Cathar anthropology and preservation that went overboard ? The Teutonic knights hardly fucked about in Lithuania, Poland… real unseemly shit went down there, yo. Nor did the reconquistadors in Spain mess about, *or *the just_conquistadors in the Americas - a fact that to this day makes historians weep, because they/we sure could have done with a codex or two hundred to figure out what the hell was going on out there before Columbus - instead most of the history we’ve gathered on that part of the world is based on guessing what this or that stonework could possibly have meant, dreaming up rationales for this or that geegaw and collating half-remembered folk tales still extant among the great great great great great grandchildren. Same viz how Native American tribes worked - there, too, Europeans did a splendid job deliberately wiping out the oral histories, eroding tribal cultures and using the settlements & artifacts for firewood. Much effort was expended wiping any tribal and African culture from slaves as well.

It’s about order and control, and it’s just what you do if you have an ounce of good sense (and you’re interested in conquering places, of course). When you don’t bother doing that, well… how’s Palestine these days ?

None of this makes Muhammed morally right or justified, of course - I’m not in any position to debate morality, being an apathetic misanthrope, and philosophy always felt a lot like wanking to me anyway :). But it provides some IMO needed historical and contextual perspective.

[Monty]

@mcysr

I think there is ample evidence that they are exactly following the teachings of Mohammed.

Yep…It’s taking a lot longer than we thought.

[Hank_Beecher]

Kunwar Khuldune Shahid: Excommunicating terrorism

…

The most convenient reaction to 9/11, which has been echoed every time terrorists showcase Islam as the motivation behind their butchery, has been to excommunicate the terrorists – claiming that the Islamist militants aren’t Muslims at all. The same reverberations have been resonating ever since ISIS has come to the fore, with leaders of the West, Barack Obama and David Cameron dutifully lip-synching to the chorus.

This takfir, or excommunication, has been as expedient as it has been precarious, because it allows the Muslim world to rid itself of any responsibility for the action of the terrorists that it nourishes. It also allows Muslims to conjure the aforementioned victim card when the obvious influence of Islam on Islamist terrorism is even hinted at. What this also beefs up is the resolve of the moderate Muslims, a lot of whom do not reside within any tangible proximity of the ‘Muslim world’, in shrouding the most important fact in all the debate surrounding Islamism: that majority of the Muslim world supports the Islamist ideology even if they don’t back the ensuing terrorism.

Saying that ISIS represents all Muslims or Islam would be preposterous – just like saying that Islam has exclusive rights over violence. However, claiming that ISIS doesn’t represent any Muslims is even more absurd, just like saying that Islam does not influence Islamist terrorism at all. ISIS, al-Qaeda, TTP, Boko Haram, et al are the manifestations of the obvious influence of religion on religious extremist, and their identical ‘misinterpretations’ of Islam, which has the backing of the popular Muslim opinion, cannot be shunned as un-Islamic.

In a PEW survey in April last year it was found that over 80% of Muslims from the Muslim world want Sharia law in their homeland – 84% in Pakistan. Now since the interpretation of Sharia varies, one has to dig deep to find out what exactly the Muslim world seeks.

76% of Pakistanis who support Sharia believe apostates should be killed, 89% believe adulterers should be stoned to death and 87% believe hands should be chopped off for theft. While numbers vary throughout the Muslim world, the extreme viewpoints form the comfortable majorities in most cases. Not to mention the fact that PEW did not include Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan in last year’s survey.

Even so, in another PEW survey conducted in July this year strong majorities all over the Muslim world expressed their apprehension regarding Islamist terrorism – including 66% Pakistanis. Now either the Muslim world has undergone a miraculous reformation in 15 months or it’s completely oblivious of the concept of cause and effect.

Whilst the majority of the Muslim world is against blowing up one’s own country, the lion’s share still support the ISIS interpretation of Islam of stoning and chopping off hands. What possible logic can then be used to claim that the likes of ISIS have “nothing to do with Islam” or the even more mindboggling claim that they aren’t even Muslims?

Instead of owning up to the Muslim community’s collective shortcomings and instigating a veritable reformation of Islam wherein the precarious commandments are shelved instead of being twisted into a self-defeating coil of apologia, the moderates continue to declare pointless takfiri fatwas on the Islamists. Apostatising the Islamist ideology would mean declaring over 80% of the Muslim world as non-Muslims.

It’s the excommunication of terrorists by the tiny moderate fraction of the Muslim world that is directly responsible for the escalation of Islamist terrorism in the past decade. Because you don’t solve a problem that you claim isn’t yours to begin with.

…

[Princhester]

@Novelty_Bobble

Then there really wasn’t much of a point at all as any reasonable person would agree that the most extreme of your faith do not define your faith as a whole.

It’s nice to belong to and post at a reasonably intellectual messageboard, huh?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Obama has to deal with a populace of which approximately half are of below average intelligence, and of which some unknown but substantial proportion are as insular and as rabidly xenophobic as people tend to be.

To my observation, there is in fact a very signficant proportion of people who believe that Muslim and terrorist are close to being synonyms. They may not be reasonable people, but that doesn’t mean you, me and Obama don’t have to share a planet with them, and that means they have to be dealt with in some way. Even if that means explaining to them things that should be damn obvious.

[adaher]

Hank, is it really excommunication though? Real excommunication has power. If major Sunni imams actually excommunicated these guys I bet it would make a difference, although I’m not familiar enough with how the Sunni hierarchy works to know if that’s even possible.

[Captain_Amazing]

@adaher

Hank, is it really excommunication though? Real excommunication has power. If major Sunni imams actually excommunicated these guys I bet it would make a difference, although I’m not familiar enough with how the Sunni hierarchy works to know if that’s even possible.

There’s no Sunni hierarchy, really, at all. Shi’ites are hierarchical, but for the Sunni, everybody has the equal right and responsibility to decide what Islam means for himself. In Sunni Islam, an imam is just the guy who leads prayers, but even though he’s supposed to be knowledgable about Islam, he can’t actually tell anybody what they should do.

It’s the same thing with a mufti. A mufti can issue a fatwa on a point of religious law, but nobody has to follow it (and one of the big complaints that muftis have is people who go “fatwa shopping”…they come to a mufti with a question, he answers it, they don’t like the answer, so they go to somebody else, etc.).

That sort of thing is why people like Bin Laden and other leaders like him exist. They preach their interpretation of Islam, get followers, and there’s nobody in Sunni Islam who can overrule him, or conclusively say he’s wrong.

[nani]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

ISIS is not Islamic in the same way that Westboro isn’t Christian. Is it possible to get any clearer than this?

There’s a pretty big difference between noting that someone is on the fringe and declaring that someone is actually outside of the bounds of a religious identity. The same thought process that is used to delegitimize ISIS in this way also delegitimizes all types of minority/progressive/heterodox groups and individuals.

I don’t particularly criticize President Obama for continuing long-standing policy and contributing to this worldview to the small degree he did, but I still think he is operating from ultimately oppressive assumptions, and this will have negative consequences.

@mcysr

I think there is ample evidence that they are exactly following the teachings of Mohammed.

Comments like these are difficult to address because the proper response is not simple. You have to unpack:

What Muhammad is said to have taught and done.
How this has been understood over time by different audiences.
How assigning and claiming authority to do the things that Muhammad did has evolved over time in Islamic thought.
The history of rebellion/anti-establishment movements in Islamic contexts

Just to start. And the answer you get at the end of all that will not probably not be a satisfying one. Who has time for that?
I actually quite liked that article just posted by Hank Beecher. Food for thought. Adaher: Despite how it is used in the article, Takfir is not really an Islamic version of excommunication, though colloquial meanings might be similar. Many, many traditional Sunni scholars around the world have denounced ISIS, but this is more because of ISIS’s claims of authority than their brutal actions.