What's new

What The Atlantic Gets Dangerously Wrong About ISIS And Islam

Dubious

RETIRED MOD
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
37,717
Reaction score
80
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
BY JACK JENKINSPOSTED ON FEBRUARY 18, 2015 AT 10:57 AM UPDATED: FEBRUARY 19, 2015 AT 3:37 PM

AP982995073516-638x478.jpg


Shakir Waheib, a senior member of the al-Qaida breakaway group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), left, next to a burning police vehicle in Iraq’s Anbar Province

CREDIT: AP

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 articlethe 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.

In his article, Wood acknowledged that most Muslims don’t support ISIS, as the sheer number of Muslim groups who have disavowed the terrorist organization or declared it unIslamic is overwhelming. Yet he repeatedly hints that non-literal Islamic arguments against the terrorist group are useless because justifications for violence are present in texts Muslims hold sacred.


“…simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them.” Wood writes. “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.”

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.”

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.

“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.”

Wood, of course, didn’t accidentally invent the idea that violent passages in Islamic texts make the religion especially prone to violence, or that ISIS’s supposedly Islamic nature is evidence of deeper issues within the tradition. These concepts have been around for some time, but are becoming increasingly popular among two groups that usually find themselves ideologically opposednamely, right-wing conservatives and the so-called “New Atheists,” a subset of atheism in the West. Leaders from both camps have pointed to violent passages in the Qur’an as evidence that Islam is a ticking time bomb. Rev. Franklin Graham, son of famous evangelist Billy Graham, has regularly attacked Islam using this logic, and recently responded to questions about the Qur’an on Fox News by saying that Islam “is not a religion of peace” but a “violent form of faith.” Similarly, talk show host and outspoken atheist Bill Maher sparred with Charlie Rose last September over ISIS, saying that people who disavow the group as unIslamic ignore the supposed “connecting tissue” between ISIS and the rest of Islam, noting “The Qur’an absolutely has on every page stuff that’s horrible about how the infidels should be treated.”

It is perhaps for this reason that Fox News and several other conservative outlets fawned over Wood’s article after it was published, as did prominent “New Atheists” Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

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.

“[Wood’s position] confirms exactly what people like ISIS want people to think about them, which is that they are the only legitimate voice,” she said. “It echoes that rhetoric 100%. Yes, that is what ISIS says about themselves, but it is a different step to say ‘Yes, that is true about the Islamic tradition and all Muslims.’”

Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, expressed a similar sentiment in an interview with Raw Story on Tuesday. He argued that in addition to Wood’s piece being “full of factual mistakes,” its de facto endorsement of literalistic Quranic interpretations amounts to an advertisement for ISIS’s horrific theology.

“Scholars who study Islam, authorities of Islamic jurisprudence, are telling ISIS that they are wrong, and Mr. Wood knows more than what they do, and he’s saying that ISIS is Islamic?” Awad said. “I don’t think Mr. Wood has the background or the scholarship to make that dangerous statement, that historically inaccurate statement. In a way, I think, he is unintentionally promoting ISIS and doing public relations for ISIS.”

Awad also noted that Wood used “jihad” and “terrorism” interchangeably, which implicitly endorses ISIS’s argument that their savage practices (terrorism) are a spiritually justified religious duty (jihad). In addition, there is a major issue with Wood’s offhand reference to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as “the first caliph in generations”: although a caliphate can be established by force, a caliph, by definition, implies the majority support of Muslims (which ISIS does not have) and caliphates are historically respectful of other religious traditions (which ISIS certainly is not).

Lamptey also noted that Wood’s position is demeaning, because it renders invisible the overwhelming majority of Muslims whose theologies rebuke violent atrocities. Among other things, Wood’s piece extensively quotes Bernard Haykel, a Princeton scholar the journalist relies on heavily throughout the article, who says Muslim leaders who condemn ISIS as unIslamic are typically “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion.This stands in stark contrast to the bold statements from respected Muslim scholars all over the globe challenging ISIS’s Islamic claims, and Lamptey says such comments can be read by many Muslims as having their peaceful devotion to their own religion second-guessed by people who believe they’re simply “overlooking things.”

“[Wood and others think moderate Muslims] they’re not ‘real’ Muslims, but ‘partial’ Muslims, or even apostate,” she said. “The majority of [Muslims] do not subscribe to [ISIS’s] view of their religion. But they do subscribe to the idea of emulating the Prophet Muhammad, upholding the text, and upholding the tradition, but come up with very different end points about what that looks like.”

“It’s not like these Muslims are ‘kind-of Muslims.’ They’re Muslims who are committed to the prophetic example in the texts and the Qur’an,” she added.

Other Islam scholars say this narrative breeds suspicion of Muslims as a whole. Mohammad Fadel, Associate Professor & Toronto Research Chair for the Law and Economics of Islamic Law at the University of Toronto, told ThinkProgress that these arguments entertain the notion that all Muslims are just one literal reading away from becoming terrorists.

“There already is the background … that stresses the idea that Muslims lie about what they believe,” Fadel told ThinkProgress. “That they really have these dark ambitions, but they just suppress them because of their own strategic purposes of conquest. They pretend to be nice. They pretend to be sympathetic to liberal values, but as soon as they get the chance, they’re going to enslave us all. The idea here is that they’re all potential followers of ISIS.”

On first reading [Wood’s article] seemed to suggest that a committed Muslim should be sympathetic to ISIS, and protestations to the contrary either are the result of ignorance or the result of deception,” he said. “That’s not helpful, and potentially very dangerous.”

Granted, Fadel and Lamptey agreed that a discussion of ISIS’s apocalyptic theology is important, and were hesitant to single out Haykel. But they remained deeply concerned about the popularity of Wood’s framing, and challenged his assertion that ISIS is a “very Islamic” institution that is somehow representative of the global Muslim community.

“Yes, [ISIS is] Islamic in that they use Islamic sources to justify all their actions,” Fadel said. “But I think the question that bothers most Muslims is the idea that just because someone says they are Muslim or that their actions are representative of Islam doesn’t make it so. Just because a group can appropriate Islamic sources and Islamic symbols, and then go around doing all sorts of awful things, doesn’t mean that they get to be the ones who define for the world what Islam means.”

“Muslims who reject ISIS aren’t doing it because they’re bad Muslims. They just have a compelling version of Islam that they think is much better.”


What The Atlantic Gets Dangerously Wrong About ISIS And Islam | ThinkProgress


I had already posted this in response to this thread: What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic

BUT no one read it apparently ....It is exactly what I have been saying... however when coming out of the mouths of EXPERTS only will people listen, so be it!
 
. .
I can't really recall reading anything in the Koran that if taken literally would tantamount to an incitement to violence against others; if you take things completely out of context and ignore the Arabic of what is written then maybe you could find a verse or two that extol violence but then again that kind of intellectual dishonesty would change the meaning of any written or verbal thing out there.

Sometimes I wonder if the people who become self-styled experts on Islam and Muslims have ever bothered to read the Koran or not ?

@Armstrong itni jaldi parli? :o:

I took a course on speed reading once ! :smokin:
 
.
Sometimes I wonder if the people who become self-styled experts on Islam and Muslims have ever bothered to read the Koran or not ?
You dont need to wonder long, half of them proof their Jahalat by not being able to recite even Bismillah properly!

@Armstrong
This is why I give definitions of words and terms...A Muslim the word itself is a verb...If you arent practicing ISLAM you AUTOMATICALLY cant be a Muslim ....MUsafir one jo safar kerta hai...MUslim one who does ISLAM

The term itself shouldnt be allowed to be used freely...sure its a easy religion and there are 5 pillars to sustain it....But MOST ONLY pass the 1st!
 
.
Not another one @Akheilos
Simply put the ones who are loudest are the ones who are heard the most. There is no need to explain to the world because they have the internet and they can learn whatever they want and if they want to see Islam as a terrorist religion nothing will stop them. If they want to learn enough sources online.

The term itself shouldnt be allowed to be used freely...sure its a easy religion and there are 5 pillars to sustain it....But MOST ONLY pass the 1st!
And those who pass the first will be judged by ALLAH not us.
 
.
Not another one @Akheilos
Simply put the ones who are loudest are the ones who are heard the most. There is no need to explain to the world because they have the internet and they can learn whatever they want and if they want to see Islam as a terrorist religion nothing will stop them. If they want to learn enough sources online.
.
I think this piece of article is nice it is sad people avoided it in the other thread to which it was a direct reply from Experts!

I had put this direct reply in this thread with only 1 post What The Atlantic Gets Dangerously Wrong About ISIS And Islam | ThinkProgress

And those who pass the first will be judged by ALLAH not us.
That isnt my problem....But human beings having the stupid habit of labeling and painting everyone with the same brush seem to use those people to define an everyday Muslim!

Our silence seems to encourage them while explaining the basic meaning of the Muslim (being a verb than a noun) seems to kill many!

I guess akalmandoun kay liyea ishara yeh tha that the name Muslim was given to us by ALLAH and we should realize HE chose a us to be acknowledged as a verb not a noun....Hence when we dont do the verb how can we called one?
 
. .
Yet he repeatedly hints that non-literal Islamic arguments against the terrorist group are useless because justifications for violence are present in texts Muslims hold sacred.
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

I think these points are right in many respects.Changes are required,what they are i don't know.
 
.
@Akheilos Talking about Religion on PDF , is exactly as " bhains ke aage been bajana "
Yaar this is an article by experts countering the article written by atlantic and was getting quoted by others

I think these points are right in many respects.Changes are required,what they are i don't know.
Did you read the article?

You only quoted what someone said which this article was replying and not the reply!
 
.
Yaar this is an article by experts countering the article written by atlantic and was getting quoted by others

but you are been a member here from many years , you should understand the mental level of People who are wanabe arabs or wanabe westerns ...
there is no rocket science ... People dont take religion seriously , and those who take it seriously are blowing themselves up ....
people who start his search on google with " how to bash Islam " or " how to prove Islam as terrorist religion " there is no hope for them ....
 
. .
No offence, but the article looks like a rainbow. :p:
It looks one of my friend's book who underlined every line, too messy.
 
Last edited:
.
Did you read the article?

You only quoted what someone said which this article was replying and not the reply!

Read the full article........and i agree with many points of the original article thats being critisized here.
Thats my frank opinion.

Some changes are in order,,,maybe a better interpretation but u still have those violent verses.Something needs to be done about those.
 
.
and those who take it seriously are blowing themselves up ....
I disagree with this...I take religion seriously and have no plans to blow anything let alone myself!

people who start his search on google with " how to bash Islam " or " how to prove Islam as terrorist religion " there is no hope for them ....
I never keep hope in people....people are people and not reliable...But I found this article really awesome it covers everything I an everyday person can summarize but it is sad when the media has to bring "experts" to prove common sense...And it is further saddening when people take Anjem Ch. who isnt a certified preacher nor a scholar as an expert and give him more time as compared to these people who actually have degrees in the field!

Read the full article........and i agree with many points of the original article thats being critisized here.
Thats my frank opinion.
Ahh I see
Some changes are in order,,,maybe a better interpretation but u still have those violent verses.Something needs to be done about those.
If ever in your life you had said something like mar dounga tujhay salay....and some recorded and used it in some other context....would it be valid?

The verses are not violent if read in context....But are specific...That is what the article also explains but with a prefixed mindset you must have missed it!

No offence, but the article looks like a rainbow. :p:
It looks one of my friend's book who underlined every line, too messy.
Yea I read like that...Esp if I have to read 4-5 journal articles in office and make sense of them and then some others for PDF

@Akheilos

Why are you so obsessed with religion
Obsessed?

Just coz you are living a fine life in your home and dont care doesnt mean one who cares about certain issues is obsessed...I can ask the same, why are you desensitized?

When you people quoted selective articles, I never called you obsessed but when I share an article by experts in the field who have a different view point than yours I am obsessed? Lovely!

Yup proven people wanna live in denial coz it is easier to digest than using their brains!

Thank you for taking part in the experiment!
 
.
but with a prefixed mindset you must have missed it!

I am free from this as i don't follow any religion.

I hate all religious fanatics whether they are hindu,sikh,buddhist,islamic etc.
Problem is right now islamic nutjobs are too big a number compared to other religious nutjobs combined.This cannot be denied.

My only question is why??
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom