Is ISIS Islamic? Islam scholars say yes!


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Link here.

The article highlights two realities. First, the claims by today’s politicians (mostly Democratic but also including President George Bush) that Islam is a religion of peace and that its violent radical elements are distorting the religion is downright false. Second, this conclusion is reached not by western rightwing pundits but Islamic scholars themselves. To quote:

Egypt’s Al-Azhar issued a statement Dec. 11, 2014, refusing to declare the Islamic State (IS) apostates. “No believer can be declared an apostate, regardless of his sins,” it read.

…The “Al-Azhar” referred to is the mosque and university in Cairo that are a center of Sunni learning. So the answer is pretty clear. As far as the center of Sunni learning is concerned, ISIS is not only Islamic but they adhere to most of the same interpretations of Islam. Many scholars have examined ISIS and found that it is very Islamic. And that ISIS is violent precisely because it adheres to Islam. [emphasis mine]

I have trimmed the quotes for length so it is worthwhile to go to the link and read it all. Based on the actions of Islam’s own scholarly leaders, it is a religion that endorses terrorism and murder.

Meanwhile, President Obama remains oblivious, not only to these minor facts but to the ISIS attack in Paris. This weekend his administration released five terrorists, including a man suspected of being one of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguards.

I ask again, whose side is he really on?

Share

12 comments

  • Cotour

    Maybe Obama can bring himself to say the words “radical Islam” just once and not make moves that are half hearted and essentially allowing those who he appears to sympathize with in some way room to operate.

    His resignation would suite me just fine at this point, enough is enough.

  • Phill O

    I believe there is a difference between Obama and Bush on this matter as follows: Churchill downplayed the devastation in London during WW2 to help maintain moral. His administration also played up the resilience of the British people, some of whom wanted surrender. Bush downplayed the crime wave after 911 in New York and all politicians were commending New Yorker’s on their civil interest. However, at the same time, Bush sent in the national guard. For Bush to say that Islam was a religion of peace was, I think, along this line.

    Obama, however, seems to be protecting the criminal aspect of this and reducing the backlash against the Islamic community. This is blind as a backlash is exactly what is needed to push the Islamics in controlling the terrorist elements themselves. These people need to know that the free world will not tolerate these kinds of actions. The other dark side is that some people (many) believe Obama’s rhetoric, exacerbating the problem.

    It is true that there are many in the Islamic countries who are Muslim to live and work. The Anbar awakening was an example of the moderates turning from the terrorists. This only happened when it was clear that the USA was winning. When it became clear that the USA was moving out, they turned sides and Ramadi went back to the terrorists. The same is true in Afghanistan now. Countless American and Canadian lives were lost for nothing since the turn-tail-and-run mentality grew.

    So the long and short is: I can agree with the arguments about Obama’s handling of the war but rather supports George W’s “surge” after it was found that the intelligence had been wrong.

    The intelligence on Iran is not wrong yet the Obama administration sure screwed that deal up.

  • Garry

    I caught part of Obama’s speech this morning in Turkey. It sounded like he didn’t have a teleprompter; for much of what I heard he hemmed and haw’ed a lot, choosing his words carefully so as not to offend.

    This was particularly true when he spoke of the refugees coming from Syria; he stated (I’m paraphrasing) that they are the people who suffer the most under terrorism; they are widows, orphans, etc. and it’s our duty to give them asylum. I would have been fine with that, had he said that MANY of them fit this description, and that obviously the refugees had been infiltrated by terrorists, so we ought to screen them more carefully.

    But he didn’t say that. In fact, his tone and delivery changed very quickly as he said (paraphrasing) that the last thing we should do is adopt the views of some Republican politicians who say that we should not accept Muslim refugees. He sounded very angry, and his words came out quickly and fluently. I’m not sure anyone is saying exactly that, but he attacked the strawman with gusto.

    What bothers me the most about Obama is that he walks on eggshells so as not to offend anyone, especially our enemies, yet he uses very aggressive speech against his political enemies rather than find any common ground.

    He finished off his speech by saying “unfortunately, I have to go to The Philippines,” but then he caught himself and made an awkward correction.

    This is the greatest orator since Churchill?

  • wodun

    “This is blind as a backlash is exactly what is needed to push the Islamics in controlling the terrorist elements themselves.”

    No, we don’t need a backlash against Muslims, especially in our own country.

    I think its foolish to import them by the million but we should direct our anger at the Muslims who engage in jihad. The problem is that many non-Jihadi Muslims have the same warped views about our country that Democrats and global socialists have. It is very hard to deal with “moderates” who believe in the most cooky and distorted conspiracy theories and leftist narratives about the USA.

  • wodun

    I learned something interesting the other night talking to some Sunnis in region. There are some cultural differences here at play, which are difficult to unpack.

    I had always assumed that different Muslim groups had conflicts over theology but still considered each other Muslim. This is the Western way of thinking because we are used to thousands of different forms, or denominations, of Christianity. We live in a pluralistic society with many different religions.

    It turns out that Sunnis do not even view Shia as being Muslim. I had not realized this. Not just that they are Muslims who disagree on some theological points but literally not Muslim. They also do not view ISIS as Islamic, despite whatever ISIS claims about itself. If you bring up ISIS’s own views on being Islamic, you will be met with the no true scotsman fallacy.

    This is important because everyone else realizes Sunni, Shia, and other forms of Islam are all under the umbrella of Islam.

    When those in the west say, “Islamic militants” or “Islamic Terror” Sunnis view this as an attack on all of Islam. They do not make the distinction between themselves and those engaged in jihad. They do not make this distinction because they deny ISIS and other forms of Islam are actually Islamic. So when someone says Islamic terror, they take that to mean Sunnis because they are the only real Muslims.

    The problem is compounded because despite the theological differences, the foreign policy views of ISIS, how the world is viewed, how history is viewed, how people in general are viewed seems to be pretty much universal in the region.

  • Phill O

    I am afraid I must disagree with you wodun. I think that the terrorist problem must be solved by the Muslims.

    Yes, there are worthy people who say they fallow the Muslim faith, but they are the ones who must not be silent!

  • Edward

    Robert wrote: “I ask again, whose side is he really on?”

    When he told us that “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKxDdxzX0kI — 10 seconds ), he told us that he was not on the side of the USA. Anyone on the side of the USA would not want to fundamentally transform her.

    Such a statement was difficult to believe, after all, most politicians make the most horrific gaffs at times. However, his actions and the fundamental transformations that this country has undergone under his reign have shown us that he is not on the side of the USA. Actions speak louder than words, and his actions confirmed his words.

  • Orion314

    This problem stems from the word “muslim”, if one where to substitute that word for one like , um , say , “Nazi”,, the world would have no problems with this word, as WWII showed us all…..this fallacy in thinking all religions are worthy and must be protected is the heart of the problem, after all , their were many religions from ancient times that are long extinct , and no one misses them a bit…the Aztecs come to mind…

  • wodun

    “I think that the terrorist problem must be solved by the Muslims.”

    I don’t necessarily disagree. There are some major problems in that society in how they view other human beings that can only be changed by several generations of societal change. A lot of these problems aren’t even religious per se, they are cultural. But that doesn’t mean we should abandon our friends to genocide.

    Whether we get involved or don’t get involved is moot at this point because we are involved whether we like it or not. The other side has a vote on this.

    Iraq was full scale military invasion and it could have worked if we had a diplomatic tail on the effort. Libya was just destroy the country and let the survivors work it out, that didn’t go well either. Inaction of any kind leads to things like 9/11 or groups like ISIS going nuts. The only thing thing that has worked for us in the past is the WWII model with both massive military operations and a multi decade sustained post war diplomatic campaign to win the peace.

  • pzatchok

    The word Muslin only means ‘to submit to Him’ Him being Allah.

    In fact in one Surah even the followers of Jesus are called Muslim.
    Surah 3:52
    “But when Jesus felt [persistence in] disbelief from them, he said, “Who are my supporters for [the cause of] Allah ?” The disciples said,” We are supporters for Allah . We have believed in Allah and testify that we are Muslims [submitting to Him].”

    So actually any believers in God, Allah, are Muslim.

    In one Surah Allah say’s to not disparage another sect of Islam because that one could be the more righteous one.

    But Allah also says it is righteous to bear falsehoods against your enemies in times of war.

    So if the person thinks they are at war with you or your nation they are fully capable of lying to you about anything.

  • Edward

    Wodun wrote: “The other side has a vote on this.”

    It is not so much a vote as it is an imposition. When the other side goes to war with you, you have no vote or veto power on the matter.

    Wodun also wrote: “The only thing thing that has worked for us in the past is the WWII model with both massive military operations and a multi decade sustained post war diplomatic campaign to win the peace.”

    Sometimes diplomacy has worked, but never when the other side was dead set in its ways or already at war with us. In Iraq, we had started the decades-long campaign to win the peace, just as we did in Germany, Italy, Japan, and Korea. However, Obama ended that campaign by pulling out the troops that were needed to win the peace. I noticed that he did not remove our troops or bases from Germany, Italy, Japan, or Korea, where the peace is still kept.

    Pzatchok wrote: “But Allah also says it is righteous to bear falsehoods against your enemies in times of war. So if the person thinks they are at war with you or your nation they are fully capable of lying to you about anything.”

    They are always *capable* of lying, but in times of war they are encouraged to do so — it becomes righteous to do so.

  • Phill O

    “Sometimes diplomacy has worked, but never when the other side was dead set in its ways or already at war with us. In Iraq, we had started the decades-long campaign to win the peace, just as we did in Germany, Italy, Japan, and Korea. However, Obama ended that campaign by pulling out the troops that were needed to win the peace. I noticed that he did not remove our troops or bases from Germany, Italy, Japan, or Korea, where the peace is still kept. ”

    Here you hit on the real problem! Yes, the peace was being won through strength. The true war crime was withdrawing and letting things spiral out of control. Trudeau is trying to do that in Canada. With his absolute commitment to bring Syrian refuges here (especially Ontario) there will need to be much better border procedures for Canadian going south. Profiling is one solution that will hit Syrian ISIL infiltration.

    When I talk about making the Muslims take ownership of solving the problem, I do not mean using the brutality they use on western scum.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *