How Islamic is Islamic State?

The rise of Isis in Iraq and Syria has been a disaster for the public image of Islam � and a boon for the Islamophobia industry. Here, after all, is a group that calls itself Islamic State; that claims the support of Islamic texts to justify its medieval punishments, from the stoning of adulterers to the amputation of the hands of thieves; and that has a leader with a PhD in Islamic studies who declares himself to be a �caliph�, or ruler over all Muslims, and has even renamed himself in honour of the first Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr.

The consequences are, perhaps, as expected. In September 2014, a Zogby poll found that only 27 per cent of Americans had a favourable view of Islam � down from 35 per cent in 2010. By February 2015, more than a quarter of Americans (27 per cent) were telling the pollsters LifeWay Research that they believed that life under Isis rule �gives a true indication of what an Islamic society looks like�.

Yet what is much more worrying is that it isn�t just ill-informed, ignorant or bigoted members of the public who take such a view. �The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic,� wrote Wood in his widely read 10,000-word cover report (�What Isis really wants�) in the March issue of Atlantic, in which he argued, �The religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.�

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/03/mehdi-hasan-how-islamic-islamic-state

The Islamic state being a religious group with a coherent theology seems quite obvious. It's a drastic theology allowing little or no room for dissent or for human fallibility, but a fair degree of consistency is manifestly present.   That is not to say they represent Islam as the majority see it (but that majority has its own tensions and potential divisions)
Blaming the West (hardly a unified entity, either: the only country England has had more wars with than France is... Scotland), there I would need to see a case being made, and especially one without an arbitrary historical cut-off. Yasir Qasdhi seems to only want to go back 35 years, which is utterly inadequate for any understanding of how the middle east we now have, arose. A view over a hundred years at least is necessary, if not more.
35 or 50 years ago American "moves" were not free options, but were drastically influenced by the other big non-western factor in play: The Soviet Union.
It's complicated, not simplistic.
(And no, I'm not making America, Britain or France out to be the "good guys")
"Blame America" is no adequate analysis, reason or excuse. Especially for ISIS. Except for those who choose to be satisfied with such.

Chris.

abuayisha wrote: "the hellish conditions Western powers created in the region."

I rather tend to think that what the western nations brought to the region was free-thinking which opened the eyes of some people to not want to live under repressive regimes any longer that claim religion as the source for that repression.
I think the more that the eastern nations had contact with the west, and prosperity to send their children to school in the west, what began to change was the fact that their young people no longer wanted their thoughts and their speech to be controlled by their governments.  They became aware of the progress of the rest of the world.
Free thinking brings people into conflict with their governments, when those governments are insistent on being repressive of the people.
I think the problem is not so much, 'what the west brought', as it is the repressiveness that exists, and people seeing that the rest of the world does not live in such a way, and neither do they have to.
Of course finding their way out, without losing the religion they have been taught to cling so tightly to... a religion that is hugely what they see as their identity... is what causes all the chaos.

just some thoughts,
CH


Edited by Caringheart - 22 March 2015 at 7:32pm

abuayisha wrote: A recent article called �What ISIS Really Wants� has become the most read story every published in the history of The Atlantic. In it, Graeme Wood says that pretending that the so-called Islamic State isn�t actually a religious group, with a coherent theology, has led the rest of the world to underestimate its power. But it has caused an uproar online. One of Wood�s most thoughtful critics is Muslim scholar Yasir Qadhi, who says the problem with Wood's analysis is not what he says, but what he doesn''t say: that the root causes of ISIS are "the hellish conditions Western powers created in the region." Graeme Wood, lecturer in political science at Yale University and a contributing editor to The Atlantic a Yasir Qadhi, Muslim cleric and assistant professor of religion at Rhodes College http://interfaithradio.org/Story_Details/ISIS__Driven_by_Revenge_or_Theology_

I just finished listening to the radio program and I am left with a few impressions.

- Where is ISIS getting its weapons from?

- If ISIS is unislamic, then why aren't muslim nations rising up against it with actual force to defeat it? 
because I agree, military action must come from the islamic world if the rest of the world is to believe that ISIS is not accepted by the islamic world
and as long as it is perceived by the rest of the world as acceptable, it will remain a threat which the rest of the world will see the need to defend against

- Why keep blaming the west for the deficiencies of the east?  Why does the east not police itself?  Why do they seem so crippled and hog-tied to get their affairs in order?


and yes, when eastern governments were toppled, it was because the people decided to take a stand... they wanted change... they were no longer willing to submit to repression... they rose against their own islamic rulers...
the arab spring was not a thing brought on by western military powers.

Iraq may have been the exception because western powers did go in and topple Saddam Hussein... but that does not mean that the people were not wishing for this...
what it does mean though, is that the people were not prepared on their own to set up a replacement for dictator, as seems to be true across the entire islamic world... they have been so suppressed that they do not know how to rule themselves.

again, just some of my observations.... I know that there are way more facets to this... but to lay blame on the west is a fruitless endeavor...
seeking the way forward would be productive... seeing the plank in ones own eye instead of forever complaining about the splinter in another's.

Where would the Jews be today if they allowed themselves to be wrapped up in blame rather than taking responsibility for moving themselves forward.  They have taken their energies to build themselves up, and just look at what they have accomplished.


Edited by Caringheart - 22 March 2015 at 9:14pm