ISIS in Islam

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

My Grandfather, who was a Lutheran, used to play golf with a Baptist minister. He told me once that the Baptist minister claimed that without full context he could use passages from the Bible to justify almost any horror you care to name: incest, genocide, murder... etc.

I suspect the same is true for the Koran and the Hadith. Various passages taken in isolation without the fuller context of the broader passages can be used to justify much that is terrible. That doesn't mean someone is a "bad Muslim" if they refuse to accept those passages in isolation and want the fuller, richer, and more nuanced view of more well thought Muslim scholars and legal traditions.

This attempt to frame the Daesh as "real Islam" is like claiming Christians who reject the Westboro Baptist Church are false Christians. No faith or philosophy should be defined or bounded by the most extreme people who expound upon a particular faith or philosophy.

I wouldn't call Westboro Baptist Church, The Lord's Resistance Army, or Godfrey of Bouillon false Christians, nor would I call the people who disagree with their interpretations false. As a secular liberal, calling Daesh real Islam doesn't preclude other interpretations from also being real Islam.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

HMM,

So, what you are saying is that claiming the Daesh are not Muslim is using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Interesting. I wish Pat Robertson would shut his stupid mouth but, sadly, he is a Christian with very weird ideas about what Christians ought to be doing:

http://rackjite.com/pat-robertsonquit-job-avoid-infection-by-buddhists/

[Chaircat Meow]

HMM,

So, what you are saying is that claiming the Daesh are not Muslim is using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Interesting. I wish Pat Robertson would shut his stupid mouth but, sadly, he is a Christian with very weird ideas about what Christians ought to be doing:

http://rackjite.com/pat-robertsonquit-job-avoid-infection-by-buddhists/

No, that's not the argument. I'm saying that within the full context of the Islamic scriptures, tradition and history ISIS has a good claim to be strongly Islamic, and that therefore they'll be able to attract Muslims to their cause.

[Salafi Stannis]

No, that's not the argument. I'm saying that within the full context of the Islamic scriptures, tradition and history ISIS has a good claim to be strongly Islamic, and that therefore they'll be able to attract Muslims to their cause.

Maybe to someone like you, who seems, no offence, rather ignorant of Islam, but to the scholars who have studied the religion their entire lives, such as Muhammad Nasiruddin Al Albani, Saleh Al Fawzan, Muhammad ibn Uthaymeen, those guys, whose purpose in life is to gain Islamic knowledge, those guys disagree with you.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

HMM,

No, that's not the argument. I'm saying that within the full context of the Islamic scriptures, tradition and history ISIS has a good claim to be strongly Islamic, and that therefore they'll be able to attract Muslims to their cause.

And that's where you lose me. You seem to be attempting to argue that the Daesh are somehow more true to Islam than more nuanced and progressive Muslim Scholars. That's the "No True Scotsman" in reverse. It's like trying to argue Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians are less Christian than Sola Scriptura churches.

I accept Pat Robertson is Christian even if I disagree with his interpretation of Christ's teachings. I do not accept that he is somehow more Christian by telling his followers to shun Buddists. Nor, do I think the Daesh are more Muslim by enslaving people and executing homosexuals.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

No, that's not the argument. I'm saying that within the full context of the Islamic scriptures, tradition and history ISIS has a good claim to be strongly Islamic, and that therefore they'll be able to attract Muslims to their cause.

I'm sympathetic to your argument, but it seems to me that Isis is more singlemindedly fanatic, intolerant an stubborn than even the Rashidun an Umayyad Caliphates were.

[Salafi Stannis]

I'm sympathetic to your argument, but it seems to me that Isis is more singlemindedly fanatic, intolerant an stubborn than even the Rashidun an Umayyad Caliphates were.

The Rashidun Caliphs are called the "Rightly Guided Caliphs" for a reason.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

HMM,

And that's where you lose me. You seem to be attempting to argue that the Daesh are somehow more true to Islam than more nuanced and progressive Muslim Scholars. That's the "No True Scotsman" in reverse. It's like trying to argue Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians are less Christian than Sola Scriptura churches.

I accept Pat Robertson is Christian even if I disagree with his interpretation of Christ's teachings. I do not accept that he is somehow more Christian by telling his followers to shun Buddists. Nor, do I think the Daesh are more Muslim by enslaving people and executing homosexuals.

I honestly can't understand why you seem to be going out of your way to misrepresent what HMM is saying. I haven't seen HMM say that ISIS is "more true" to Islam than any other Islamic sects, and the fact that you seem to be pulling this out of what HMM is saying seems to have more to do with you than HMM's actual argument.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nestor,

Then what does the adverb "strongly" have to do with the definition of "Islamic"?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Nestor,

Then what does the adverb "strongly" have to do with the definition of "Islamic"?

You tell me. What does the phrase "good claim" mean in relation to "strongly Islamic," and how does the use of "good claim" instead of alternate descriptors such as, "better claim," "superior claim," or "best claim" mean vis-a-vis claims regarding ISIS' philosophy to other, more moderate, philosophies of Islam?

You know, because it seems like me, if he meant, in your phrasing, that ISIS philosophy was "more true" he wouldn't have used "good claim" he would have used a descriptor such as "better claim," "superior claim," or "best claim" to truth to indicate that these were MORE VALID alternatives, as opposed to equally valid alternatives.

[Salafi Stannis]

You tell me. What does the phrase "good claim" mean in relation to "strongly Islamic," and how does the use of "good claim" instead of alternate descriptors such as, "better claim," "superior claim," or "best claim" mean vis-a-vis claims regarding ISIS' philosophy to other, more moderate, philosophies of Islam?

You know, because it seems like me, if he meant, in your phrasing, that ISIS philosophy was "more true" he wouldn't have used "good claim" he would have used a descriptor such as "better claim," "superior claim," or "best claim" to truth to indicate that these were MORE VALID alternatives, as opposed to equally valid alternatives.

And what knowledge do you have of Islam to decide that they're equally valid alternatives? I've at least bought proof from people who's life mission is to learn the religion of Islam, ie, people with knowledge of Islam, who say that ISIS' version of Islam is corrupt and incorrect. I mean, several of the actions of ISIS, Al Qaeda and others like them go directly against Islam's teachings, such as suicide bombings, beheadings and MOST IMPORTANTLY, KILLING MULTITUDES OF OTHER MUSLIMS. People seem to forget that the first people at threat from the Khawaarij are us, Muslims.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

And what knowledge do you have of Islam to decide that they're equally valid alternatives? I've at least bought proof from people who's life mission is to learn the religion of Islam, ie, people with knowledge of Islam, who say that ISIS' version of Islam is corrupt and incorrect. I mean, several of the actions of ISIS, Al Qaeda and others like them go directly against Islam's teachings, such as suicide bombings, beheadings and MOST IMPORTANTLY, KILLING MULTITUDES OF OTHER MUSLIMS. People seem to forget that the first people at threat from the Khawaarij are us, Muslims.

I didn't say that they were equally valid alternatives. I said that HMM was saying, effectively, that they are equally valid alternatives, and that Scott is actively misrepresenting his arguments to attack a straw man.

As for your larger question, I think the entire project of religious scholarship generally, insofar as it is a project to uncover supposedly immutable theological truths about the religion, is a fatally flawed endeavor founded on false premises - namely, that there are immutable theological truths to discover about any religion. That the Abrahamic traditions and religious texts contains significant and fundamental internal inconsistencies and contradictions is, I think, beyond any serious dispute. Islam, at least, has the benefit of a unitary vision for its core holy book, which for consistency's sake should theoretically beat the pants off the "patchwork of religious vignettes spanning a time frame of over a thousand years" which how the Jews and Christians did it. In theory, at least. Because in reality, even the Quran contains numerous internal inconsistencies on issues of serious theological importance, and it's also, taken as a whole, pretty lacking as a comprehensive guide as to how to live one's life as a Muslim. Hence, the necessity of being forced to just create a whole category of Islamic doctrine based solely around the sometimes apocryphal "sayings and traditions of the prophet (plus-I-guess-we-might-as-well-throw-in-the-twelve-imams-and-Mohammed's-daughter-because-why-not, if you're a Sunni, at least) and the whole idea of Quranic "abrogation" just to try to maybe kind of get a consistent and comprehensive set of practices.

And while I'm supportive of any attempt, by any religion, to figure out a way to update their religions to function in a not crazy and insane way in the 21st century even though they were all born out of cultural contexts in which things like slavery, rape, child brides, murder and genocide were acceptable and justified - I think it's foolish to think that what you're actually discovering is some internally consistent, immutable theological truth in the process.

[Salafi Stannis]

Nestor,

Your post is quite large and I'm on the train and my phone is dying, so I haven't had the chance to give it more than a quick skim, and I'll make a longer, more relevant response soon, when I get home, but for the meantime, I'd like to point out that the whole 12 imams stuff is for the Shias, not the Sunnis, and I'm a Sunni. More specifically, a salafi.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Nestor,

Your post is quite large and I'm on the train and my phone is dying, so I haven't had the chance to give it more than a quick skim, and I'll make a longer, more relevant response soon, when I get home, but for the meantime, I'd like to point out that the whole 12 imams stuff is for the Shias, not the Sunnis, which I am.

You're right. I apologize. I meant Shia, not Sunni. Take your time.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nestor,

I'm still perplexed as to why HMM responded to this post:

HMM,

So, what you are saying is that claiming the Daesh are not Muslim is using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Interesting. I wish Pat Robertson would shut his stupid mouth but, sadly, he is a Christian with very weird ideas about what Christians ought to be doing:

http://rackjite.com/...n-by-buddhists/

With this:

No, that's not the argument. I'm saying that within the full context of the Islamic scriptures, tradition and history ISIS has a good claim to be strongly Islamic, and that therefore they'll be able to attract Muslims to their cause.

If not explict he certainly seems to imply the Daesh are more Islamic than other more progressive Muslims. Remember my post above was a softball agreeing that I had misunderstood his earlier position. Hence, I think he's implying the Daesh are more Islamic than other more tolerant Muslims.

[Crom Dubh]

If not explict he certainly seems to imply the Daesh are more Islamic than other more progressive Muslims. Remember my post above was a softball agreeing that I had misunderstood his earlier position. Hence, I think he's implying the Daesh are more Islamic than other more tolerant Muslims.

Scott, you ask if he is saying one thing is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. He says no to that, and then says "I think that ISIS strongly embodies Muslim teachings, and you can see why they might be attractive to young Muslims." He does not say or imply anything that you're reading into his post. He is arguing against the idea that they are wingnut extremists, divorced from their own faith. He is not arguing that their interpretation is more valid than any other. At least, not in any of the posts from this thread. The use of the words "strongly" and "good claim" simply reinforce the fact that they can easily justify their actions through their scripture, and do not imply that their actions are "more Muslim" than a moderate Muslim's actions.

Not that I think Meow is a particularly intelligent or insightful human, but it seems like you want to be offended by him, Scott.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Crom,

I get the impression, and this could just be me, that he wants the Daesh to be representative of Islam. That's my objection.

[Crom Dubh]

Crom,

I get the impression, and this could just be me, that he wants the Daesh to be representative of Islam. That's my objection.

I can't read his mind, and I don't anything about Meow other than his ridiculous arguments in "is atheism a belief" thread, but it seems that it may just be you in this case. For what it's worth, ISIS is representative of Islam in that it represents a violent strand of extremism that seems quite attractive to many disenfranchised Muslims. That does not mean that it represents all of Islam, or that it invalidates the moderate or liberal Muslims. That's how I interpreted the argument, at least.

[Dicer]

I though this would be relevant to this thread:

Why does ISIS attract muslims?

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121286/how-islamic-islamic-state

How Islamic Is the Islamic State? Not at All. What The Atlantic got wrong about ISIS :

Didier François, a French journalist who was held by ISIS in Syria for ten months before being released in April 2014. “There was never really discussion about texts,” the French journalist told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour last month, referring to his captors. “It was not a religious discussion. It was a political discussion.”

According to François, “It was more hammering what they were believing than teaching us about the Quran. Because it has nothing to do with the Quran.” And the former hostage revealed to a startled Amanpour: “We didn’t even have the Quran. They didn’t want even to give us a Quran.”

Sageman believes that it isn’t religious faith but, rather, a “sense of emotional and moral outrage” at what they see on their television screens or on YouTube that propels people from Portsmouth to Peshawar, from Berlin to Beirut, to head for war zones and to sign up for the so-called jihad. Today, he notes archly, “Orwell would be [considered as foreign fighter like] a jihadi,” referring to the writer’s involvement in the anti-fascist campaign during the Spanish civil war.

Religion, according to this view, plays a role not as a driver of behaviour but as a vehicle for outrage and, crucially, a marker of identity. Religion is important in the sense that it happens to “define your identity”, Sageman says, and not because you are “more pious than anybody else.”

Three years earlier, in 2008, a classified briefing note on radicalisation, prepared by MI5’s behavioural science unit, was obtained by the Guardian. It revealed: “Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could . . . be regarded as religious novices.” The MI5 analysts noted the disproportionate number of converts and the high propensity for “drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes”. The newspaper claimed they concluded, “A well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.”

The whole thing is an interesting read.

That said, I do find the Shia muslims to be the more tolerant lot in general and the group that is more persecuted. There was a fellow graduate student who was Sunni and who scoffed at the Shias as not being real Muslims. I am not sure I understand why the Sunnis and Shias are trying to kill each other? Maybe King Stannis the Mannis can explain this feud?

I also think that people who strictly follow their holy books are the true followers of their religion. So in a sense, the Westboro Christians ARE true Christians. Child murder, rape, torture, genocide, incest, tyranny, mass slaughter, slavery, mutilation, child molestation and infanticide all appear in the Bible and all in the name of God.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Dicer,

I also think that people who strictly follow their holy books are the true followers of their religion. So in a sense, the Westboro Christians ARE true Christians. Child murder, rape, torture, genocide, incest, tyranny, mass slaughter, slavery, mutilation, child molestation and infanticide all appear in the Bible and all in the name of God.

Why should any faith or philosophy be defined by the least nuanced, most extreme, and most violent of those who profess that faith or philosophy?