Monday, February 23, 2015

Islam: Two Views

Is the ISIS interpretation of Islamic perfection "premodern"? If that is the case, is that view closer to the original, true Islam? This is demonstrated in two articles, one which documents the Islamic justifications for the practices of ISIS, and another, which claims the need for eradicating literalism from Islamic interpretations.

ISIS does, in fact, use documented Islamic tradition and law to justify its actions. To claim that ISIS is not Islamic is irrational, because if their actions are justifiable under Islamic principles, if they worship Allah and the prophet, and if they mimic the prophet's behaviors and attitudes, then they are as Islamic as those who do not, and possibly moreso.

On the other hand, the call to modify Islam in order to make it into the beautiful religion which it currently is not makes it clear that in order for Islam to be considered "modern" rather than premodern, peaceful rather than violently hegemonic, and tolerant rather than violently monolithic, that the fundamental understanding of Islam must change. And that means that the Islamic "scholars" must change, the comprehensions of sharia and the hadiths must change. This would require an all-new religious base, an all-new intellectual and moral infrastructure.

The chance of that happening, in the face of centuries of premodern Islamic tradition which flow into Islamists around the world, is none. Moral law become relativist, is no longer moral law. To destroy the moral enabling of men over women and Islam over all others would destroy the essence of Islam. That will not happen.

For that reason Islam in the form of ISIS will be much more likely to grow rather than succumb to modernization. And for the free west, that can only mean that Islam must be, at a minimum, marginalized in the west in order to preserve western freedoms and rights.


Robert Coble said...

I found an interesting explanation of the kitman involved in ascribing to Islam the term "religion of peace."

Three words in Arabic are:



After searching for various English translations of "salaam" as being synonymous with "peace," I stumbled on to the following WikiIslam page:

Link: The Meaning of Islam


Islam: meaning = "Submission"

Many people have wrongly attempted to equate the word Islam with peace by showing that Islam, meaning 'submission', shares a root word with Salaam, meaning 'peace'. But if such relationships between the meanings of Arabic words can be created then that would imply that there is a relationship between one of the derivations of the infinitive Salama, meaning the stinging of the snake or tanning the leather, and Salam, meaning peace; a relationship which obviously does not exist.

It might seem strange to think of this as a misconception, but in fact it is. The root word of Islam is "al-silm" which means "submission" or "surrender." It is understood to mean "submission to Allah." In spite of whatever noble intention has caused many a Muslim to claim that Islam is derived primarily from peace, this is not true.

Rhetorical question:

Why is it that Islamists openly declare that a particular translation of terms is incorrect, and yet Western intelligentsia delude themselves that the Islamists really don't mean what they say (and those same intelligentsia are concurrently totally ignorant of the Islamic doctrines regarding taqiyya and kitman when dealing with infidels)?

Robert Coble said...

Here's another very useful ink on WikiIslam about the tactics used by people like our esteemed Islamic apologist Dragon fang:

Deception of Non-Muslims

This essay grew out of a discussion at the Australian Politics Forum. The aim behind it was to compile a list of all the disingenuous tactics used by Muslim spokespersons and debaters on the forum when defending the religion of Islam. As such, it does not cite traditional sources for its conclusions, but the original discussions between the essay's author and other Muslims.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Or, if you are Hindu:

To be four-armed is to be Shiva.

Stan said...

Interesting site, thanks for the link.