ISIS is Islamic in the sense that they actively claim Islamic legitimacy. Denying it to them by the same methods that governments use to deny and persecute minority religious groups in much of the world just perpetuates injustice and that is not right. However, President Obama is not in a good position to do otherwise.
ISIS is on the fringe of Islamic thought because of their generally rejected claim of authority to do what they do, but the fact that they are claiming authority is not unusual, nor is what they are doing with their claimed authority. This is simply a description of their current position in the larger Islamic community, it does not mean that their form of Islam is more or less true than any other, at least when viewed from a non-Muslim perspective.
Even though ISIS can be rightly called Islamic, that does not mean that what ISIS does can be used to predict anything about other Muslims, or that other Muslims will necessarily accept any specific action of ISIS (including their calling themselves Islamic) as religiously valid, or that every action of ISIS comes from some objectively pre-defined “Islam”. This is true no matter how big ISIS gets.
I didn’t have time to read the Atlantic article too closely, but it looked actually pretty good, as long as the preceding paragraph is kept in mind. But I think most readers, judging from comments over there, are not keeping that in mind.
I love the way people on this thread are falling over each other to claim ISIS is a “perversion” of Islam. The word “perversion” implies that Islam is being turned away from what its founder wanted it to be.
Are we being asked to believe that Muslims living and working in happy mutual respect and toleration with Christians, Jews, atheists, gays, female leaders, cartoonists, etc. are exactly what the founder of Islam, Mohammed, had in mind?
Have these posters really read the Koran? As the extremely well-written article in the Atlantic Monthly clearly explains that the ISIS version of Islam is VERY well supported by their scriptures and by well-established schools of thought in Islam.
Sorry, but verse after verse in the Koran and in the Hadiths make it clear that if Mohammed returned to the Middle East today, the warlike, sexist, homophobic, ruthless, cruel and bloodthirsty actions of ISIS designed to make the entire world Muslim and the bring in the Caliphate are EXACTLY what he would identify with! War, slavery or death for those who refuse to convert, turning captured women into sex slaves, crucifying infidels, killing apostates, declaring dogs unclean, dying in battle in order to go to Paradise. . . . . every one of these atrocities are accepted and encouraged in the Koran and Hadiths.
If Mohammed were alive today, it is Muslims like the accommodating namby-pambies in CIAR (the Council on Islamic-American Relations) that he would consider have perverted his religion. The guys who died after avenging his name by slaughtering the Charlie Hebdo people would be considered martyrs and heroes.
It implies no such thing. It implies that these guys are practicing a version of Islam that has turned away from other modern living Muslims.
I’m an atheist. Why would I give two shits about what some long dead dude would think if he magically came back to life? I care about folks who are alive today. Islam is not a supernatural force; it’s a way of living that a lot of people participate in. ISIS might or might not be an accurate historical reenactment of the way Muslims lived a thousand years ago–I’m not nearly enough of an expert on Middle-Eastern history to have a definitive opinion on that subject–but it’s certainly very different from how most folks who practice Islam today practice their religion.
So what would you say the “teachable moment” is here for the majority of moderate, peaceful Muslims?
Are you saying they must accept their religion is totally fucked up?
That basically they’re going to have all become apostates?
That if they want to have religion in their lives they’re going to have to convert to something else or start a fresh new religion.
I’m pretty sure none of that would go over very well.
I’ll confess to finding it amusing seeing an enthusiastic backer of the English Defense League, a hate group comparable to the KKK, exorciating Muslims for bigotry and intolerance.
[quote=“ITR_champion, post:2, topic:713069”]
I don’t know you or have any pony in this show but I just have to say, you sure are rude in just about every post I’ve seen from you. Perhaps some self-reflection is needed. 
First of all, I am an atheist as well, so I don’t care what some long-dead dude would think if he came back to life. But if you don’t believe in an Allah who established “his” original Islam and then allowed it to evolve into more modern forms, then you must believe Islam is the creation of Mohammed, right? Therefore, the most “real” form of Islam would logically be the one that most closely resembles what Mohammed did and said, right?
Now about 100% of Muslims will tell you that Mohammed was the “perfect man” to emulate. And what he did and preached was violent, warlike, intolerant, sexist, homophobic, and just plain nasty. To reach the goal of having the whole world worship Allah in a universal Caliphate, Mohammed was ready to countenance torture, enslavement, and crucifixion of opponents. So how is ISIS less real than modern Muslims?
Secondly, you make a very artificial distinction between the “good, peaceful” Muslims and the “nasty, violent” Muslims. Over 80% of Egyptians recently revealed to PEW Research that apostates from Islam should be killed and that adulterous women should be stoned. In fact, a majority of Muslim countries (32) have penalties for anyone who tries to leave Islam, from prison terms to the death penalty.
So what if ISIS and the Saudi Royal family and Muslims in the west hate one another? ISIS would shoot anyone criticizing Islam, and Saudi Arabia is right now in the process of very likely torturing to death, with one thousand lashes, a Muslim dissident named Raif Badawi. Meanwhile, HUNDREDS of Danish Muslims attended the funeral of the Danish Muslim who tried to kill a Danish cartoonist and in fact killed 2 other people. Now, they have a right to go to any funeral they like, but since I find it hard to believe this young man knew these hundreds of people, what message are these Danish Muslims sending us? The make-believe distinction between "nasty: and “nice” Muslims is useless one, because in Islam we face a religious ideology that many Muslims choose to interpret in ways that range from ISIS and Boko Haram to the seemingly normal Muslim guy on the corner who is normally a nice guy, but if asked will tell you the people at Charlie Hebdo got what they deserved.
May I ask to whom you are referring?
Refute the points made, please.
I didn’t see anyone make swipes at your character in lieu of an argument.
It is not up to me to start a reformation of Islam. What do you want me to do, nail 95 theses on the door of the Great Mosque in Mecca? At the present time the Saudis are essentially whipping to death Raif Badawi, a young man whose crime is blogging. So frankly, I don’t like those odds.
IS their religion totally fucked up? Well, that is for them to decide, but let me give you a small example. I went to a showing of “The Book of Mormon” last month. As you may know, it mocks Mormonism pretty badly. What did the Mormons do? They took out an ad in the show’s program that says “Now read the REAL Book of Mormon”, and which invites people to read about Mormonism. RIGHT IN THE FRIGGIN’ PROGRAM! That is what civilized human beings do,
Another example: The Bible says homosexuals should be put to death. Right in Leviticus. Now, do you know ANY significant number of Christians or Jews (yes, I am sure you will find some nutbar somewhere, but I am talking about significant numbers) who want to kill gays?
Civilized people learn how to create a secular state that allows religion to exist alongside other opinions. But I can’t tell Muslims how to do it.
Wrong. The idea of the most “real” form of Islam is borderline incoherent–but insofar as there’s any meaning to that phrase, the most “real” form of Islam would be the form that folks who are self-identified Muslims practice.
So much wrong here. First, what’s your cite on that first claim? Second, what nuance do most Muslims put on it? After all, 100% of Muslims aren’t founding their own religion and leading followers into battle, so clearly 100% of Muslims don’t try to emulate Mohammad exactly. Second, not all of his preaching was “just plain nasty,” certainly not more so than, say, Paul or Abraham. Third, I never said ISIS was less real than modern Muslims.
I’ll leave others to correct the rest of your bigoted screed.
Here it comes, the old “bigotry” accusation. I am not going to ask you where St. Paul said to make war to spread the gospel, or where he said that opponents defeated in war should be crucified. I realize that Paul had sexist ideas about men and women, and told slaves to obey their masters, but where does he tell his followers that women taken in war can be turned into sex slaves, for example? Sorry, but Mohammed was a murderous and bloodthirsty warlord. One female poet who opposed him, he had torn apart by horses. Can you find me one case of Paul killing anyone?
But no matter what Paul said or did not say, what remains is this simple reality that you apologists of Islam simply will not admit. Who the Hell would be afraid of mocking Jesus or St. Paul or Abraham, and who would hesitate to do a cartoon of them if they felt like it? Comedians mock Christianity and Judaism every day and sleep soundly. It is in Islam that large minorities of tens of millions refuse to adapt to the modern world, and use murder and burning embassies to insist that THEIR blasphemy laws must be observed everywhere in the world.
Frankly, you’ve ridden this particular hobby horse far enough away from the OP’s question that I’m not particularly interested in following you. Ride 'em cowboy and all, but I think I’m done with you here.
Thank you for reminding me. I still stand by every word but we were getting away from the OP.
To get back to it, the quote that concerns me the most in the Atlantic Monthly article by Wood reads : "Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet.”
It is a big mistake to believe that just because a Muslim in the west is not going around being violent or militant, he must agree with our western values and democratic ideals. Note, for example, all the Muslim commentators in the media who, after incidents like Charlie Hebdo or the Danish killings, start off with the required-but-mild condemnation of the murder, before moving on to elaborate “explanations” of the poor, oppressed Muslims and why they react as they do. If you really listen to these commentators and their apologia, you realize they are just a hair’s breadth away from outright declaring that the victims got what they deserved. Similarly, they are not going to contradict the example of the Prop[het outright. But that does not mean they do not agree with his example.
What swipes did I make at anyone’s character?
I merely noted that a strong supporter of the racist hate group that calls itself the English Defense League has been complaining about the bigotry and intolerance of Muslims.
Those are factually accurate statements.
What did I say that you felt was inaccurate?
One of the points that Wood makes in his Atlantic Monthly article is that when “good” Muslims say they do not agree with crucifixion of enemies or slavery, as practised by Mohammed, they may well just mean they are against it at the present time.
When Muslims start semi-justifying Mohammed’s atrocities by citing historical context, it is interesting to ask them: “Then I take it you do not absolutely condemn Mohammed for those atrocities?” They are almost certain to answer that it was justified for Mohammed at the time. Otherwise they would be condemning Mohammed, an act punishable by death.
So the next question should be “What about the future? Might there be times in the future when you would accept crucifixion and slavery if the historical context were similar?”
I think we’re overlooking the obvious here. We need to shape this debate as the primal fight between good and evil. For example:
We are not at war with Islam. But… there is a war going on for the heart and soul of Islam. And we stand firmly agains the forces representing a backward, repressive, and undemocratic form of Islam championed by the likes of the so-called Islamic State, Boko Haram, or al Shabab. Most muslims reject their brand of Islam, and we do as well. Instead, we align ourselves with the forward looking, democratic and pluralistic brand of Islam practiced by, for example, our closest ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.
Oh wait. That might not work so well. In fact, that might be exactly why we are fucked in this whole effort. We are NOT the good guys. We are the guys who are absolutely OK with little bit of Islamic extremism, but not too much.
Valteron, I understand and agree with most of your points. I agree it is not up to us to start the reformation of Islam (like we could, like they’d appreciate that help from the West).
I’d be interested in your opinion about us dealing with ISIS. It seems to me it’d be better for us to do minimal…or even nothing…which would leave the fighting to the threatened Muslim countries. The very countries that foster this craziness. I feel if THEY have to deal with it, they might take steps in the future to prevent it, and a secular version of Islam could blossom.
What The Atlantic Left Out About ISIS According To Their Own Expert
Bernard Haykel, the academic who was quoted in the article, has been getting a lot of heat for some of his comments, and has decided to clarify and expand on what he said:
He also discusses the non-theological factors he mentioned that didn’t get quoted in the article: