Inaccurate trope all too common in many Western circles: that ISIS is an inevitable product of Islam

[bigtree]

khalid javed ?@kjaved 1h1 hour ago
What The Atlantic Gets Dangerously Wrong About ISIS And Islam | ThinkProgress http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/18/3624121/atlantic-gets-dangerously-wrong-isis-islam/ …


On Monday, The Atlantic unveiled a new feature piece by Graeme Wood entitled “What ISIS Really Wants,” which claims to expose the foundational theology of the terror group ISIS, also called the Islamic State, which has waged a horrific campaign of violence across Iraq, Syria, and Libya over the past year. The article is deeply researched, and makes observations about the core religious ideas driving ISIS — namely, a dark, bloodthirsty theology that revolves around an apocalyptic narrative in which ISIS’s black-clad soldiers believe they are playing a pivotal role. Indeed, CNN’s Peter Bergen published a similar article the next day detailing ISIS’s obsession with the end times, and cited Wood as an “excellent” source, quoting a passage from his article with the kicker “Amen to that.”

Despite this, Wood’s article has encountered staunch criticism and derision from many Muslims and academics who study Islam. After the article was posted online, Islamic studies Facebook pages and listserves were reportedly awash with comments from intellectuals blasting the article as, among other things, “quite shocking.” The core issue, they say, is that Wood appears to have fallen prey to an inaccurate trope all too common in many Western circles: that ISIS is an inevitable product of Islam, mainly because the Qur’an and other Islamic texts contain passages that support its horrific acts...

Although Wood qualifies his claim by pointing briefly to the theological diversity within Islam, Islam scholars argue that he glosses over one of the most important components of any faith tradition: interpretation. Jerusha Tanner Lamptey, Professor of Islam and Ministry at Union Theological Seminary in New York, told ThinkProgress that Wood’s argument perpetuates the false idea that Islam is a literalistic tradition where violent texts are taken at face value...

“That’s very problematic to anyone who spends any of their time dealing with the diversity of interpretations around texts,” Lamptey said. “Texts have never been only interpreted literally. They have always been interpreted in multiple ways — and that’s not a chronological thing, that’s been the case from the get-go … Wood’s comments create the impression that Islam is literalistic, backward-minded, and kind of arcane or archaic, and we’ve moved past that narrative...”

“ISIS exegetes these verses away I am sure, but that’s the point,” she said. “It’s not really about one perspective being literal, one being legitimate, one ignoring things…it’s about diverse interpretations. But alternative ones tend to not gain any footing with this kind of black-and-white rhetoric. It completely delegitimizes them.”

But while these positions are widespread, Lamptey noted that they are also potentially dangerous because they play directly into ISIS’s plans. By suggesting that Islam is ultimately beholden to specific literal readings of texts, Lamptey said Wood and other pundits inadvertently validate ISIS’s voice...


read more: http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/18/3624121/atlantic-gets-dangerously-wrong-isis-islam/

[TrogL]

1. ISIS is the inevitable product of authoritarianism

Fundamentalist Christianity is another example

[Fumesucker]

2. Authoritarianism combined with fundamentalist religion

Two things that are seen together so often they seem like the same thing.

Problem is there's always people who will interpret scripture "literally" and then want to act on it.

[randome]

3. It's an inevitable product of a part of the world that prefers to live in the Dark Ages.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. ISIS is an expression of Islam, just as the Klu Klux Klann and the Anti-balaka

are an expression of Christianity.

Those groups and others are not the only expression of their religions, nor even the mainstream expression, but it is unrealistic and illogical to say they are not part of that religion because they make us uncomfortable. I think we are gravely in error when we refuse to accept that literalist interpretations of a religion are not part of that religion.

I say "Islamic Extremists" because they are Islamic and they do follow an extreme version of Islam that interprets Islam in a very specific way. There are Jewish extremists and Christian extremists, also.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. At least this piece does have one thing as direct evidence against the Atlantic article

Like other responses to it, a lot of it is strawman-attacking - Wood never said ISIS is 'true' or 'typical' Islam, just one variant following a very violent and war-obsessed interpretation. But this article does bring up something to use - something from the Quran to say ISIS is going against the Quran:

Lamptey also said that Wood’s argument overlooks other Quranic verses that, if taken literally, would contradict ISIS’s actions because “they promote equality, tolerance.” She pointed to surah 22:39-40 in the Qur’an, which connects the permission for war with the need to protect the houses of worship of other religions — something ISIS, which has destroyed several Christian churches, clearly ignores.

So, that's something un-Islamic, on ISIS's own terms, that can be used to show they are religiously hypocritical.

[riderinthestorm]

6. There's no central authority to say these ISIS fuckers are wrong!

Its correct that the Quran is all about the "interpretation" but its also correct that there's no central authority to say whose right.

They're all right. As long as its in the Quran it can be justified.

This is just another attempt to try to spin ISIS' murderous theology away from Islam.

[jwirr]

7. We knew from the beginning that our invasion of the ME was going to create more terrorists. Here

they are. And they are the inevitable result of the type of war we are fighting over there. One based on lies with a goal of stealing resources and making money for the MIC.

[4139]

8. ISIS is a COMMON offshoot of Wahhabi Islam

Before Isis there was and is the Taliban and the Muslim brotherhood... All just theme and variations.

[whatthehey]

9. Why must it be either inevitable or unconnected?

I don't think it's an inevitable product of Islam. But to argue it is NOT a product of Islam is to ignore their words, their actions, their effect on their controlled areas, their recruiting strategy, and their stated and demonstrated goals. All of them completely aligned with and explained by their interpretation of Islam.

Others with different interpretations can surely argue that ISIS have Islam wrong, just as Christians can argue the KKK and Operation Rescue have their theology wrong. In this day and age I even agree with this POV. There really is no sensible reason to think either religion has dogma that should drive terrorism in the 21st century, or that it will achieve much of lasting import.

But all that means is you need to both argue with their theology and deal with the results and dangers of their very real theologically-driven mayhem. Not pretend that they put sugar in their porridge so they are nothing to do with religion at all.

[bigtree]

10. I think its meant to emphasize how Islam is being exploited by the leadership

...President Obama called it a 'perversion' of Islam - I'd call it a bastardization of the religion.

There's no question that it serves as an organizing principle, but the leadership seems driven more by megalomania and greed/lust for power and conquest than by a religious goal. The abominations, the beheadings and other actions are meant to intimidate and subjugate, but, as those questioning the connection to Islam point out, they aren't justifiable by the Koran and are even contradicted by other interpretations.

You call it, 'theologically-driven mayhem', but I find that this particular terrorist group's following is motivated, driven, attracted more by anti-U.S. furor than by religious belief. Islam appears as more cover for their actions than the impetus; especially among the leadership.

[whatthehey]

13. The trouble with any religious motivation though is fungibility

I'm not a mind reader and neither is anybody else so we can't say for sure what drives ISIS' leadership internally. We can say with surety however that their recruits are essentially exclusively Muslim joining up because they obviously agree with ISIS leadership's very clearly stated, very Islamic in derivation, motivations. They are not mindreaders either so they must be driven to join by what ISIS claims publicly, QED.

And both that group and the "Little Mosque on the Prairie" Muslims can point to their favorite surah, their favorite hadith, their favorite Imams, as justification for their version of Islam and why the other group is incorrect, And there is no central authority to appeal to for final arbitration. Each says the other is misled. Heck even in Catholicism where there IS a final arbiter, both clergy and laity spend plenty of time arguing over interpretations, so what chance does Islam have of ever being able to say group A really is Islamic and group B is not?

Anti-US fervor and fundamentalist Islam are hardly diametrically opposed by any means of course. We are Dar-al-Harb central, perceived with some justification as an anti-Islamic nation and with every justification as one diametrically opposite the constraints of the Quran. Hating us and what we have done in the region is justifiable both inside and outside Muslim scripture. Can't say I wouldn't hate the US had I been exactly the same person but of different nationality. I would however, I hope, not think the solution is to behead both Americans and many more non-Americans because they disagreed with my exegesis however.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. So how do you explain the 10 countries that execute gay people all using Islamic law?

Are they also a bastardization? Because ISIS is not the only brutally oppressive entity that claims to be as it is because of Islam.
The argument you and others seem to be making suggests that the line is drawn at ISIS, while Islamic States that oppress, enslave and murder are not criticized and are in fact left out of the whole discussion. I think that is a huge demonstration of religious privilege in action.

[bigtree]

16. what's the problem with viewing the leadership of ISIS differently?

I think they're more mercenary than religious. I don't know why we have to associate them with every other religious-based, oppressive movement in the Middle East.

[Oktober]

11. What does one expect...

... when you put all the responsibility and accountability for your actions in a higher and completely unaccountable power?

Coupled with a mandate to grow...

This is what you get...

[geek tragedy]

12. some strain of extremist fundamentalism is inevitable in virtually every religion.

Shintoism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, even Buddhists.

Religion isn't some innocent harmless thing that just magically gets turned into a hateful ideology. It encourages at some level that people distrust their own senses and brains, which can lead to tragic consequences.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. I'm sick of religious people claiming religion is innocent in all things. Get real people.

nt

[bigtree]

17. I didn't read that in this article

...I read an attempt to disassociate what many Muslims regard as their belief outside of any justification in that religion for murderous acts on its behalf or in its name.