Pages

Jump to bottom

27 comments

1 Great White Snark  Feb 17, 2015 10:02:38am

These guys are terrifying. The fact so many quail at the idea of our troops along with regional troops makes no sense to me. Map from the article. Recent history does not change the existential imperative for local nations.

2 CuriousLurker  Feb 17, 2015 12:19:43pm

This article basically equates Islam with terrorism and justifies Islamophobia by asserting that if Daesh says they’re Muslim and they’re cherry picking things that suit their agenda, then they’re legitimate.

According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. “Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,” Haykel said. “They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.” He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”

This is basically saying the same thing that Geller and all the other Islamophobes say, that there’s really no difference between extremists and mainstream Muslims. Just because these guys are using Islamic texts doesn’t mean that they way they interpret them has “as much legitimacy as anyone else.” If so, then every bigot or racist (or group of them) that self-identifies as a member of a given religion and uses its text(s) to justify their actions has as much legitimacy as any other. So the KKK is as legitimately Christian as your neighborhood church or pastor, Meir Kahane and Yitzhak Shapira are as legitimate as any other Rabbi or Jew, etc.

If Daesh is legitimate, then why did close to 200 Muslim leaders and scholars from around the world write an open letter discussing no less that 24 points on which they are entirely off base? Here’s the PDF of the entire letter in English—it’s also available in 9 other languages, including Arabic, at the website’s main page—there are 126 signatures at the end of it & 49 more here.

Let me be clear for anyone who doesn’t get what I’m saying: I’m NOT claiming that Daesh isn’t a Muslim problem—that would be stupid and obviously dishonest. I’m also NOT claiming that their members aren’t Muslim or that they don’t use religious language and pick out bits from established, mainstream Islamic sources that they find convenient to their mission, but that doesn’t make them “legitimate” from a sane, mainstream Muslim perspective—if it did Muslims from all over the world would be flocking to their call by the hundreds of millions and the West would truly have a problem on its hands.

BTW, the name of the article’s author (Graeme Wood) is ringing a bell, but only faintly. I’ll have to look into the tons of data I’ve collected and figure out why. Interesting that Mr. Wood provides no citations for where he’s getting his info—e.g. specific verses of the Qur’an and their in-context exegesis, the specific number of any hadith(s) some of these things may be based on, Who are the established Islamic scholars backing up what he says, and why doesn’t he provide any specific context for how/why Daesh should be considered “legitimate” in the larger Islamic picture?

3 Lumberhead  Feb 17, 2015 12:28:47pm

re: #1 Great White Snark

I don’t think that I could support involving more than a limited number of our troops until I was convinced that the existential threat was to the U.S.

I’ll be honest and admit that much of this in selfish on my part. My children are either at or approaching military age and with job prospects so limited for this generation military service might seem inviting. My oldest (25) is unlikely to take that path but the two younger ones (20 & 14) still might. I want live children and not dead heroes.

4 CuriousLurker  Feb 17, 2015 12:34:38pm

I would add that both Breitbart & NRO are loving this article. I’m sure Geller is likewise quite ecstatic and this will be waved around on every anti-Muslim hate blog within a day or two, if not sooner. That should tell you a little something.

Now I’m off to go figure out why this guy’s name is ringing bells…

5 CuriousLurker  Feb 17, 2015 12:40:54pm

re: #3 Lumberhead

For the record, I’m not pissed at you about this article, I’m just pissed in general at the non-stop B.S. that gets passed along as “truth” about Islam because people fear it yet most know very little about it.

As a matter of fact. I originally came to you page so that I could click on the link in your profile to your Twitter handle and send you this as I know the subject interests you and you might want to page it.

6 CuriousLurker  Feb 17, 2015 12:47:15pm

re: #1 Great White Snark

These guys are terrifying. The fact so many quail at the idea of our troops along with regional troops makes no sense to me. Map from the article. Recent history does not change the existential imperative for local nations.

[Embedded content]

The problem with us sending troops in is that Many Muslims are already convinced that the U.S. is on a “Crusade”. It also won’t help as many of our Arab allies are authoritarian types that we’ve helped prop up. I really think it needs to be handled by regional actors. Yeah, it could turn into a worse mess that way, but there are no guarantees with either method.

7 Lumberhead  Feb 17, 2015 1:14:21pm

re: #5 CuriousLurker

Thanks for the link. I’ll give a read a little later. It certainly is up my alley.

No problem regarding the criticism of the article. I don’t have nearly enough knowledge of the subject matter to have a strong opinion about the author’s premise. In this case I was just passing along an article of interest. I know I can seem prickly at times. Don’t mean to come across that way though. I should find some way to be clearer about what articles I’m endorsing. Maybe I’ll just cut back to those I endorse and feel comfortable commenting on and comment in the original post. Meat world is getting busier anyway.

8 CuriousLurker  Feb 17, 2015 1:23:55pm

re: #7 Lumberhead

Actually you’ve never struck me as “prickly”, at least not yet. ;) Please don’t hold back on my account, but one piece of advice I can give when the subject of Islam & Muslims comes up is to try substituting things you are familiar with and see if what’s being said still seems objective.

9 Lumberhead  Feb 17, 2015 4:26:18pm

re: #8 CuriousLurker

I’ll definitely keep that in mind for future articles.

10 Doofus  Feb 18, 2015 4:28:31am

From the article:

The most-articulate spokesmen for that position are the Islamic State’s officials and supporters themselves. They refer derisively to “moderns.” In conversation, they insist that they will not—cannot—waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers. They often speak in codes and allusions that sound odd or old-fashioned to non-Muslims, but refer to specific traditions and texts of early Islam.

To take one example: In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.” To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments—the stoning and crop destruction—juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an “uncircumcised geezer.”)

But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone—unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Bold is mine.

11 team_fukit  Feb 18, 2015 4:50:54am

“apocalyptic cult” just seems so 1970s

12 Dark_Falcon  Feb 18, 2015 4:53:30am

I read the article and I though it was very good. Frankly, this Page needs to be promoted, because this is a topic people need to know more about.

And no, ISIS is not representative of Islam as a whole, but it strikes a chord in the hearts of some Muslims and its worth asking why that is.

13 team_fukit  Feb 18, 2015 5:10:44am

I find the article problematic… it just reeks of an old way of thinking about religious fundamentalism that isn’t particularly illuminating.

Scholars in the 1960s-1970s who had been associated with the Frankfurt School really bought into a secularization/modernization thesis that insisted religion would pass away as societies became more modernized. That didn’t happen, but scholars who aren’t up with recent trends still blame violent tendencies on religious “throwbacks” aka “fundamentalists.”

Daesh doesn’t strike me a anti-modern at all, they seem like run-of-the-mill religious nationalists or like Islamic Zionists.

14 wrenchwench  Feb 18, 2015 5:35:32am

re: #12 Dark_Falcon

And no, ISIS is not representative of Islam as a whole, but it strikes a chord in the hearts of some Muslims and its worth asking why that is.

Is it worth asking why so many Catholics join white supremacist organizations, even though they are not representative of Catholicism as a whole?

15 Doofus  Feb 18, 2015 6:03:24am
Many mainstream Muslim organizations have gone so far as to say the Islamic State is, in fact, un-Islamic. It is, of course, reassuring to know that the vast majority of Muslims have zero interest in replacing Hollywood movies with public executions as evening entertainment. But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”

It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.” The religion allows many interpretations, and Islamic State supporters are morally on the hook for the one they choose. And yet 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.

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. “The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid,” Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy.

16 wrenchwench  Feb 18, 2015 6:51:19am
17 Pip's Squeak  Feb 18, 2015 6:57:10am

Saying that IS isn’t Islamic is like saying that the JDF isn’t Jewish, or that the KKK isn’t Christian. All three are ‘no true Scotsman’ propositions.

18 Doofus  Feb 18, 2015 7:02:23am
In reviewing Mein Kampf in March 1940, George Orwell confessed that he had “never been able to dislike Hitler”; something about the man projected an underdog quality, even when his goals were cowardly or loathsome. “If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon.” The Islamic State’s partisans have much the same allure. They believe that they are personally involved in struggles beyond their own lives, and that merely to be swept up in the drama, on the side of righteousness, is a privilege and a pleasure—especially when it is also a burden.

Fascism, Orwell continued, is

psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life … Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people “I offer you a good time,” Hitler has said to them, “I offer you struggle, danger, and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet … We ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.

Nor, in the case of the Islamic State, its religious or intellectual appeal. That the Islamic State holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It is ready to cheer its own near-obliteration, and to remain confident, even when surrounded, that it will receive divine succor if it stays true to the Prophetic model. Ideological tools may convince some potential converts that the group’s message is false, and military tools can limit its horrors. But for an organization as impervious to persuasion as the Islamic State, few measures short of these will matter, and the war may be a long one, even if it doesn’t last until the end of time.

19 team_fukit  Feb 18, 2015 7:11:52am

I think another mistake this article makes is conflating religious character or authenticity with religious origins.

No Christians today, for instance, practice Christianity the same way first-century Christians did. If some modern American Christians sold all of their things, refused to get married, or pay taxes, or serve in the military, just like first-century Christians did…. those practices wouldn’t be considered “normal” or “authentically” Christian by most of their peers.

Religions evolve and change over time. So saying that a belief or practice comports with an ancient book doesn’t necessarily make it more, or even “very,” authentic.

It’s an implicit Protestant bias and obession to distill the entire meaning of a religion down to words in a book.

20 team_fukit  Feb 18, 2015 7:22:48am

Would Haykel claim that modern Christians also have a “cotton-candy” view of their religion and its historical requirements?

21 CuriousLurker  Feb 18, 2015 11:56:02am

re: #19 team_fukit

I think another mistake this article makes is conflating religious character or authenticity with religious origins.

No Christians today, for instance, practice Christianity the same way first-century Christians did. If some modern American Christians sold all of their things, refused to get married, or pay taxes, or serve in the military, just like first-century Christians did…. those practices wouldn’t be considered “normal” or “authentically” Christian by most of their peers.

Religions evolve and change over time. So saying that a belief or practice comports with an ancient book doesn’t necessarily make it more, or even “very,” authentic.

It’s an implicit Protestant bias and obession to distill the entire meaning of a religion down to words in a book.

THIS. According to his logic, as I said upthread, the KKK can be considered “legitimate” Christianity. This guy is making a shitload of assertions without backing them up—but, hey, people will believe whatever confirms their bias.

22 Mentis Fugit  Feb 18, 2015 3:28:31pm

re: #18 Doofus

Nor, in the case of the Islamic State End Times Christianity, its religious or intellectual appeal. That the Islamic State End Times Christianity holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It is ready to cheer its own near-obliteration through global climate change, and to remain confident, even when surrounded as the polar icecap melts and Australia bakes, that it will receive divine succor if it stays true to the Prophetic model.

Gosh, I thought that paragraph felt familiar.

23 Prof. Backpfeifengesicht, PhD  Feb 21, 2015 4:53:47pm

re: #2 CuriousLurker

If so, then every bigot or racist (or group of them) that self-identifies as a member of a given religion and uses its text(s) to justify their actions has as much legitimacy as any other. So the KKK is as legitimately Christian as your neighborhood church or pastor, Meir Kahane and Yitzhak Shapira are as legitimate as any other Rabbi or Jew, etc.

What would that even mean, to be an “illegitimate” Christian (for starters), and who decides?

If one uses it as a synonym for “respectable”, then this makes a bit of sense, but being respectable is neither here, nor there in an intellectual context. Respect is a fleeting and subjective thing. Are Protestant fundies respectable? Are they legitimate? The answer depends on the person and moreover, sometimes it will be different for the two questions, which indicates that respectable and legitimate are different things.

Neither can the word mean merely “traditional” or “historical”, because then one would have had to agree with certain Catholics of old that Luther and the rest of the Protestants were somehow illegitimate Christians. Which would be obviously foolish, even though the Protestants broke away from centuries of the Christian tradition (even as they proclaimed to restore it).

So “legitimacy” can only have something to do with the truth-value of their religious claims. If one is an outsider, one doesn’t have any legitimate “measuring stick” by which to judge a particular sect. An outsider, by def, doesn’t think of any of them as “true” - otherwise they would have belonged to a sect. (Some outsiders make the mistake of using their “gut feeling” as a sort of a radar: if some particular sect is too brutal for them and harshes their mellow, then “of course” it’s not legitimate. This feelings-based approach is obviously nonsensical though.)

An insider has such a “standard”, which is based on their personal beliefs. So a Protestant can consistently claim that Catholics aren’t legitimate Christians (or vice versa), but that judgment is valid only for that particular person (and perhaps his comrades, who have the same worldview). It cannot then be used by the outsiders to prove anything.

If Daesh is legitimate, then why did close to 200 Muslim leaders and scholars from around the world write an open letter discussing no less that 24 points on which they are entirely off base?

I’m pretty sure I could get 200 signatures of Christian leaders and scholars who would claim that Mormons aren’t [legitimate] Christians, but that would have no bearing whatsoever on whether they are or not.

An argument from authority simply doesn’t work in matters concerning religious intergroup disputes, because of course leaders/scholars of group A will condemn leaders/scholars from group B (and vice versa). All that means is that group B is not group A. It doesn’t mean that B is not a subset of C, of which A is also a subset.

Arguments from authority play a certain role when one deals with highly centralized religions. If e.g. the Pope says that X is not a member of the Catholic Church, it has some weight (though Popes can also lie, etc.). That wouldn’t establish that X is not a Catholic though (there are Catholics outside the RCC) and certainly not that she’s not a Christian.

ISIS are bad guys (from lots of perspectives, incl. a Western liberal one and a mainstream Muslim one). That’s all there is to it. But if one insists on discussing legitimacy in any meaningful way (leaving gut feelings aside), then: no, they’re not “sociologically legitimate” (in what concerns respectability, mainstreamness and such things), but epistemologically they are on the same footing as the others. And yes, so are Kahanists, KKK and the rest of the bad guys. Being a bad guy doesn’t mean that you automatically lose epistemo-/theologically.

24 CuriousLurker  Feb 21, 2015 5:22:13pm

re: #23 Prof. Backpfeifengesicht, PhD

le·git·i·mate (lə-jĭt′ə-mĭt)
adj.
    1.
        a. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
        b. Being in accordance with established or accepted rules and
            standards: legitimate advertising practices.
        c. Valid or justifiable: a legitimate complaint.
        d. Based on logical reasoning: a legitimate deduction.

thefreedictionary.com

Tommy Robinson is indisputably British. He can put a crown on his head and proclaim himself the King of England, but that doesn’t confer legitimacy on his claim, despite the fact that he is British.

25 CuriousLurker  Feb 21, 2015 5:45:13pm

re: #23 Prof. Backpfeifengesicht, PhD

I would also point out this article, which I paged earlier today after Lumberhead brought it to my attention:

What The Atlantic Left Out About ISIS According To Their Own Expert

The issue, Haykel says, lies in ISIS’s “ahistorical” theology, which justifies their horrific actions by essentially pretending that the last several centuries of Islamic history never happened.

“This is something I did point out to [Wood] but he didn’t bring out in the piece: ISIS’s representation of Islam is ahistorical,” Haykel said. “It’s saying we have to go back to the seventh century. It’s denying the legal complexity of the [Islamic] legal tradition over a thousand years.” […]

Context—despite his article’s wordiness, it’s something Wood largely left out.

26 Prof. Backpfeifengesicht, PhD  Feb 22, 2015 1:01:24am

re: #24 CuriousLurker

c. Valid or justifiable: a legitimate complaint.

Exactly. This is the meaning used in the quote to which my comment above applies. Epistemologically the religious claims of ISIS, Kahane and KKK are as “valid” [or not] as the claims of the competing groups. Or, to put it in a fewer words, no one can actually prove one way or another.

If a group of Islamic scholars objects to what ISIS teaches, they’re merely pitting their interpretations against those of ISIS. Same thing happened in history thousands of times (see Catholics v. Protestants, Sunni v. Shia, etc.).

Tommy Robinson is indisputably British. He can put a crown on his head and proclaim himself the King of England, but that doesn’t confer legitimacy on his claim, despite the fact that he is British.

Since [in the context] we’re merely discussing whether he’s as legitimate a Brit as any, yes, of course he is. His hypothetical claim of being a king would perhaps be somewhat (but not completely) analogous to ISIS’ claim that its interpretation is the only true one. Such claims are valid only in the heads of those who make it, indeed.

27 CuriousLurker  Feb 22, 2015 2:09:12pm

re: #26 Prof. Backpfeifengesicht, PhD

Exactly. This is the meaning used in the quote to which my comment above applies. Epistemologically the religious claims of ISIS, Kahane and KKK are as “valid” [or not] as the claims of the competing groups. Or, to put it in a fewer words, no one can actually prove one way or another.

Epistemologically? Are Spencer’s writings as epistemologically valid as those of serious scholars of Islam? Just like ISIS, he cherry picks items from Islamic texts to fit his agenda. Does that mean his writing is also a “legitimate” representation of Islamic belief? Ditto Geller et al.

You seem to be discussing Wood’s article as being in an intellectual context where epistemology is important. The Atlantic boasts about how affluent their readership is and how they represent “a vital audience of the country’s most influential thought leaders,” yet their comments section is a sewer (not as bad as some places, but not good and certainly not very intellectual).

That’s kind of my point—I find it difficult if not impossible to believe the target audience for this article was intellectuals who will sit around methodically applying epistemic principles to what they’ve read before deciding on the veracity, legitimacy or objectivity of of it’s assertions & conclusions. It’s clickbait—the topic of Islam & terrorism is pretty much guaranteed to get lots of clicks, especially when it plays to people’s confirmation bias & worst fears. At present, the article has 7,512 comments and has been #1 on The Altlantic’s “Most Popular” list for several days now. *ka-ching* Success!

Did I mention that is has also been picked up by most of the right-wing anti-Muslim hate blogs , and that they’re cherry picking Wood’s cherry picked items to vindicate their Islamophobia? For example, this paragraph from the article. Emphasis added:

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam. […]

That kind of stuff plays directly into the hands of bigots like Geller (and assholes like Anjem Choudary) who claim that violent extremists are the only True Muslims™ (she’s quite fond of using the words pious and devout to describe terrorists and their most horrific, violent actions). Of course, that means that any (observant) Muslim who presents him/herself as peaceful & tolerant with a moderate outlook either doesn’t understand his/her religion or is a devious, dangerous pretender.

Contrast the above with this, which Wood wrote in September 2014 describing the three types of people he says fight for ISIS (the other two being what he calls the “Psychopaths” and the “Sunni Pragmatists”). Emphasis mine:

The second group is more pious. Call them the True Believers. They are drawn to the caliph himself, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi—a man with a deep, if also horrifying and heterodox, understanding of Islam. […]

newrepublic.com

Sorry, but I just don’t buy the idea that Wood’s article was an “intellectual” one. He isn’t a scholar like Haykel—he’s a journalist. Even as a journalist, I find it suspicious that he made a lot of assertions about Islamic doctrine without citing sources for them. Why? As a writer for The Atlantic he has some (assumed) authority on the subject, so people who likely have little or no knowledge of Islam will give him the benefit of the doubt and take his words at face value—there will be no critical thinking involved. To me, the piece is more like the sort of intellectual Islamophobia people like Harris & Hirsi Ali peddle.

re: #26 Prof. Backpfeifengesicht, PhD

Since [in the context] we’re merely discussing whether he’s as legitimate a Brit as any, yes, of course he is. His hypothetical claim of being a king would perhaps be somewhat (but not completely) analogous to ISIS’ claim that its interpretation is the only true one. Such claims are valid only in the heads of those who make it, indeed.

I do realize that wasn’t a perfect analogy, but when I wrote it I was watching videos on my iPad and not really in the mood to put forth the effort to think of a better one. ;)


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
36 minutes ago
Views: 26 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 154 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1