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.