The Blasphemy of ISIS: A 7-Point Pro-Guide to Islam(ism)

[cbayer]

http://religiondispatches.org/the-blasphemy-of-isis-a-7-point-pro-guide-to-islamism/
BY HAROON MOGHUL MARCH 16, 2015




Graeme Wood’s controversial article on ISIS in this month’s Atlantic elicited a flurry of responses, from hearty “amens” to clever and erudite rebuttals (along with some more colorful takes on the matter). Since much of the subsequent discussion hinged on interpretations and misinterpretations of a number of terms related to Islam, RD senior correspondent Haroon Moghul assembled the following primer.

Please note that it isn’t intended as a comprehensive guide either to Islam or even to the individual terms, but should be read in the context of recent debates. — eds.

1. Jesus

The Messiah, the Word and Spirit of God, born to the Virgin Mary, Islam’s penultimate Prophet, who did not die on the cross but only appeared to; in the Muslim belief, he will return before the end of time to defeat the anti-Christ and rally the faithful. Jesus is not however perceived as divine: God is wholly One, indivisible and unique. Jesus is a sacred but fully human person.

2. Islam

In Arabic, Islam means ‘submission,’ and implicitly, ‘submission to God’s will.’ Arabic words usually descend from three-parent homes, in which each parent is a letter, and children inevitably have related meanings as well as similar sounds. The letters S-L-M, for example, produce not just ‘Islam’, and ‘Muslim’, but salam, as in ‘peace’—related to the Hebrew shalom. Which is to say, the religion is easy enough. But when it comes to ‘Islamic,’ things get a lot more confusing.

more at link

[guillaumeb]

1. Thank you for the link and the post

A very good article, but one that will not be read by enough people in this country and at DU. I say this because the Islam that is presented by Haroon Moghul does not agree with the cartoonish image of Islam and Muslims that is presented here and in the mainstream media.

And when he writes:
"Thus, ISIS is not just not Islamic, it represents the most profoundly un-Islamic position one might take short of rejecting God—that is, rejecting Muhammad’s finality by claiming his authority (and worse, to do things he would have never done.) This doesn’t mean ISIS isn’t composed of Muslims, and doesn’t believe itself to be in conformity with Islam, but believing something doesn’t make you that. Here is a fine distinction that should be elaborated on."

he could also be talking about many fundamentalist Christians who claim to speak as the only authentic voice of Christianity while ignoring the essential message.

My debate with some here is over that tendency to pick out the most intolerant and extreme examples of people who identify as a particular religion and equating the extreme with the norm and further attempting to brand all who identify as religious as identical to those extremists.

[cbayer]

2. I really like Haroon Moghul and wish he got more attention.

You are right that what he presents clashes with what people want to believe about Islam and Muslims.

We engage in the same debate when it comes to using the extremes to represent the majority. This is clearly not a legitimate position to take and leads to the inevitable and grossly erroneous conclusion that all religious should be eliminated.

The agenda of any group that wishes to be dominant should be looked at very closely.

[trotsky]

3. Is Haroon Moghul the ultimate authority on what is or isn't Islam? n/t

[guillaumeb]

4. did you read his entire post?

If you have not, he talks about the law, and what constitutes the law.

So no, Moghul is not the ultimate authority. Nor is there one on earth.

[trotsky]

5. Is he the ultimate authority on what constitutes the law? n/t

[guillaumeb]

6. please read my response to you. your question has been asked and answered

[trotsky]

7. OK, thanks. Just wanted to clarify.

So someone who does not decide was Islam or the law is, has declared that ISIS isn't following Islam or the law.

Other Muslims think that ISIS is, and that Mr. Mogul isn't.

But no one can declare which side is right.

[guillaumeb]

9. a question back:

if you are a non-believer, or non-theist, however you wish to describe yourself, can you speak on behalf of all people of like feelings?

What Moghul states is that the Prophet revealed the Law, and that only the Prophet can state definitively what the law is. Many interpret the Law, but if the interpretation is contrary to the explicit statements contained in the Quran those interpretations are not valid.
One example:
Many ISIS members are Wahhabists with a distinct version of Shia Islam that is not always supported by the Quran.
One example is the status of women. Many people criticize ISIS for their treatment of women, stating that this treatment "proves" that Islam is inherently misogynist.

The Quran admonishes those men who oppress or ill-treat women:
"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good." [Noble Quran 4:19]

If you are determined to "prove" that religion is the root cause if all that is bad in the world you are welcome to do so. You may convince yourself.

[trotsky]

11. Have I ever claimed to speak for all non-believers?

Don't think I have.

Thank you for providing your personal interpretation of what the Quran says. Many, many Muslims disagree with you and Mr. Moghul on how to interpret those verses. They're just as right as you are, for all we know, since Mohammed isn't here to decide for everyone.

If you are here to "prove" that religion is always good, and that it's the people who aren't "true" followers who do all the evil, you are welcome to try and do so. Although I think you've already convinced yourself.

[guillaumeb]

15. I did not provide my personal interpretation

the text cited is verse 4:19 of the Quran.

Here is another, even clearer text:
"And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women." [Noble Quran 2:228]

I am not here to prove anything about religion. I take exception when people try to blame any religious philosophy for actions taken by self-described adherents of the religion. Especially when the actions are specifically and explicitly forbidden by the religious text.

[trotsky]

17. "similar"

Not the same - but similar. Seems like there is some room for personal interpretation there, dontcha think? Or are you as positive as a religious literalist that you have read and interpreted the words correctly?

Especially when the actions are specifically and explicitly forbidden by the religious text.

According to one person's interpretation of that text, however you admit you could be wrong. Thanks!

[guillaumeb]

20. more for you to read:

reverence the wombs (that bore you); for Allah ever watches over you." [Noble Quran 4:1]

The Prophet of Islam (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Women are the twin halves of men." The Quran emphasizes the essential unity of men and women in a most beautiful simile:

"They (your wives) are your garment and you are a garment for them." [Noble Quran 2:187]

I suppose that you can continue to parse words in an attempt to "prove" that Islam is a misogynist religion. I am not sure where anyone can see anything but equality in a verse that states: "women are the twin halves of men".

Verse 2:187 sounds like absolute equality to me, but perhaps you read 2:187 as an injunction to make garments of the opposite sex?

[trotsky]

22. What does it mean to watch over someone?

There are identical twins and fraternal twins. Even identical twins aren't always perfectly identical. So what do you suppose "twin" means in that verse?

Are all garments alike in design, function, purpose, style? Or are there differences?

I'm not attempting to "prove" Islam is anything. You are. I am merely saying that it comes down to personal interpretation - and you have already admitted that you could be wrong. You don't get to decide what the Quran says, though you seem to be insisting you do.

[guillaumeb]

23. from the article

The final Prophet of Islam, who preached the same faith as Moses and Jesus, among thousands of other Prophets. He is the reason there is no conclusive interpretation of Shari’ah, no one and enduring Islamic law, but always and necessarily many interpretations of Shariah, meaning plural Islamic laws. (See Shariah for why the necessary produces the contigent.)

As long as Muhammad was alive, one could just ask him, ‘Can I do X?’ or ‘What shall we do about Y?’ Now that he is gone, however, while we have the Qur’an, Muhammad’s life example, and our reason with which to interpret these, we can have no final arbiter. There is no Pope recognized by a majority or even plurality of Muslims, and certainly not among Sunni or most Shi’a.

As to "personal interpretation":

Islamic law’ is meant to be a learned interpretation of Shariah; in the Sunni tradition, Islamic laws—necessarily plural—are developed, refined and promoted through sophisticated argument and popular adaptation. In other words, it’s a two-way street: One must have force of text, and logic, behind one’s position, but one must also have followers, or one is reduced to a footnote in the historical textbook.

Force of text refers to having something in the Quran that addresses what you are claiming. Verse 2:187 is quite clear. Any interpretation by anyone that offered a view directly opposite to the clear words of the verse would have to have other text to refute it.

As to personal interpretation, interpretation without supporting text and logic has little value.

[trotsky]

25. That's nice, but it doesn't address a thing I said.

In fact, if anything it seems to confirm my position, not yours.

[guillaumeb]

26. My not addressing a thing you said

is another example of how you attempt to parse and twist every statement made in many posts that you make. In my limited experience at DU, your modus operandi seems to be to seize on what you perceive as inconsistencies in statements that others make and somehow convince yourself that you have "won" the argument.

[trotsky]

28. Ah, how quickly you've come to embrace a common meme about me.

Even with your "limited experience at DU."

I have pointed out real, actual inconsistencies in your statements. They are listed above for anyone to read. I am perfectly content to let my posts stand as written.

Frustrated that you cannot address my points, you are now personally attacking me. I understand why. You'd like to think you have all the answers, you'd like to believe that religion is good and pure and noble and only the people misinterpreting it or disregarding it do bad things. Ironically, that's the same way the fundamentalists and extremists like ISIS and Pat Robertson see it. They're right, you're wrong, you're not interpreting it correctly, therefore you're not a *REAL* Christian/Muslim.

I don't think things are that black-and-white. Disagreement about the interpretation of religious texts has been a key feature of religion since the first text was written down. I don't think it does any good to simply do as you are and declare members of ISIS aren't Muslims, aren't following Islam, case closed. Any more than it does for members of ISIS to declare Muslims who disagree with them aren't true Muslims.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Well then that settles it. All those islamic nations where women are treated like shit

aren't really Islamic.

[trotsky]

34. Shockingly easy to resolve this, isn't it?

guillaumeb just needs to find an ISIS camp, stroll in, and tell them they're not following the Quran correctly.

5 minutes and everything's fixed, right?

[Promethean]

42. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on the lesson

Muslims are to learn from the foundation story of Islam? You know it right? The one where Mohammed leads his followers in a war of conquest to wipe out the idols and convert the false believers by the sword. I have been told it is one of the most important stories in the Koran, its importance being stressed heavily to every Muslim.

Also please speak on the command to establish a global Caliphate in the Koran.

Note: If you downplay the significance of either of these stories then you nullify the value of every other Koran quote you have made as by cherry picking you are saying that any part of the Koran can be ignored at will by any believer.

[pinto]

8. Interesting piece. Thanks for the post.

I'm rereading 'All the Shah's Men', Stephen Kinzer. One of the opening chapters is a good overview of the history, particularly of the historical Shia / Sunni split, of Islam for a western reader.

[cbayer]

10. I like it as well.

I just heard a great piece on NPR about this issue of whether ISIS is Islamic or not.

I'm not sure there is a definitive answer to that, but I do think it's important to use terms correctly and draw a clear distinction when it comes to those that live on the fringes of any group.

Your book sounds great, but dense. I have read some about the Shia/Sunni split but don't truly understand it.

[trotsky]

12. "I do think it's important to use terms correctly"

Right.

[pinto]

13. That fringe aspect, a clear distinction, is key. Sitting here, I can see a need for more input.

i.e. I look to Muslims in general to help inform the discussion in all media. Their voices are vital and I welcome more of it. I think we'll hear more speaking up in whatever format works for them.

Kinzer's book, once it gets going, reads like an historical thriller. He lays out a background, much of which I truly don't understand either, but once he gets to recounting the day to day events of that time it's a good read.

[cbayer]

14. Exactly. This article and the show I heard today were in response to

Graeme Woods recent article in the Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

The point was made today by a Muslim scholar that Mr. Woods did not reference or quote a single muslim scholar in his article.

That is the kind of arrogance that leads to continuing difficulties making distinctions between your regular muslim and the extremists.

It doesn't matter whether one consider them Islamic or not. The problem arises when they are labeled as somehow representative of the general population.

[trotsky]

19. I don't think many would disagree that ALF (the Animal Liberation Front) is "fringe."

The members themselves, perhaps. But then ISIS thinks they are Muslim, too.

But does that mean ALF are not animal rights activists? Because someone else declares them to be "fringe"?

[guillaumeb]

16. here is a link on the shia/sunni question

http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm

My feeling is that ISIS is Islamic in the same way that Westboro Baptist Church is Baptist.

Hope the link helps.

[cbayer]

24. Or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is Democratic.

Thanks for the link. Will look at it later.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. You meant "christian" not Baptist.

As in "Westboro Baptist Church is Christian", which of course they are, as they meet all the qualifications for being christian even if they are some fucked up hate propagating assholes. They might also meet the qualifications for being Baptist, but your analogy would only work then if you had said "ISIS is sunni wahhabi in the same way Westboro Baptist Church is baptist.

[guillaumeb]

43. members of ISIS are

actually adherents of the Shia branch of Islam.

I agree that the Westboro people are hateful types. And there are hateful types of every sect, political party, etc. But I try not to condemn the group because of the actions of individuals. Some of these individuals probably feel that they are doing good work.

But the Wahhabist branch of Shia Islam considers themselves the only true believers, much like Westboro Baptist and many other religious groups. So yes, I agree with you on that.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. uh no they are not, but if you have evidence that ISIS is a shia group please provide it.

I think if you google for approximately 0.5 seconds you will know that they are sunni jihadists.

[guillaumeb]

45. I apologize for the statement.

That is what I get for typing too fast for my brain.

[Goblinmonger]

18. So NDT, you, and others use the term "agnostic" but meet the definition of atheist

and we are supposed to go with their label.

But ISIS calls themselves Muslim and we can't have that. We need to use a term correctly in that case.

I got nothing.

[trotsky]

21. "it's important to use terms correctly"

I.e., as she wants them defined.

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. People who don't follow the texts are religioning incorrectly.

People who do follow the texts are religioning incorrectly.

Keeping up so far?

[AtheistCrusader]

35. "I do think it's important to use terms correctly"

*HEAD ASSPLODE*


Seriously, after the Agnostic/Gnostic-Atheist/Theist thread, you say THAT? Dafuq?

[Lordquinton]

27. another NTS piece

Maybe if theists stopped arguing about who is and isn't really a follower and did something to curb the nastiness in their own religion we could get somewhere.

[trotsky]

29. ...

Person A: "B isn't interpreting the holy text properly! He is not a true member of the religion!"

Person B: "Wrong - it's A who isn't interpreting it properly! She is the infidel!"

Just stunning that we don't make any progress like this, isn't it?

[Lordquinton]

39. where does it say Muhammed

Is the only one to interpret gods words?

[trotsky]

40. In guillaumeb's posts. n/t

[cbayer]

30. Some Scotsman are more true than others.

There are, in fact, a very large number of theists doing something to curb the nastiness in their own religions. I post about that frequently, but perhaps you missed it.

I do agree that the argument about whether someone really is a follower or not is irrelevant to a point. The point at which it becomes relevant is when others do not make a distinction about the way they interpret or use the religion and how the vast majority of followers interpret or use the religion.

I believe that that is really the author's point.

[trotsky]

32. At one time, the "vast majority" of Christians viewed native populations as deserving conquest.

Were the minority of Christians who opposed this activity not real Christians?

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Acceptance of Shias

In 13 of the 23 countries where the question was asked, at least half of respondents say that Shias are members of the Islamic faith. However, opinion on this matter is far from universal, and in at least two countries – Egypt and Morocco – the dominant view is that Shias are not Muslims.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/08/09/the-worlds-muslims-unity-and-diversity-5-religious-identity/

This drumming out of true muslim status of muslims we don't like is such fun. In 10 of the countries surveyed less than half of the population agreed that shias were muslims.

[Lordquinton]

38. when your holy books cover everything they claim as part of their religion

You can't say theyre not. There WBC operates fully within the words of the bible, ISIS operates within the words of the Koran and the Haddiths, that it makes others look bad is more a reflection on the others than them.

If christians and muslims edited out the horrific parts of their book, then they would have validity to the claims that X group isn't really Christian or whatever. Sadly the bible still fully covers slavery and stoning women for being raped so they are still part and parcel.

[cbayer]

41. I think the article does a very good job of showing how the holy

book in question does't cover everything that ISIS says is part of their religion.

At any rate, I've acknowledge that whether they are or not muslims is irrelevant and only a point of academic debate. What matters is the ability to distinguish them as a group on the fringes. Which side of the line they are on really doesn't make any difference.

It is the conflating of this group with islam in general that the author is pushing back against.

So, as you said, let's stop debating what to call them and do something about them.

Whaddayasay?

[Lordquinton]

46. tell that to the people more concerned about "not all religion"

Than about the actual hatm religion causes, they're the ones that need to hear it, and there are several in this thread.

[cbayer]

47. Who are the people more concerned about "not all religion"?

Do you mean the people, like myself, that object to the broad brushing of "all religion" and who challenge those that apparently have no ability to distinguish the good that is done by religion from the bad?

Go ahead and name names and I will be glad to speak with them.