By Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi
and Amarnath Amarasingam
"Do they think we are Jewish now? lol," responded one ISIS fighter in Syria
when asked for his thoughts on the current public debate about whether the
Islamic State is actually Islamic. He went on to make an argument, as many of
these fighters often do when interviewed, that not only is the Islamic State
Islamic but it is the purest and most pristine form of Islam, the kind most
in line with what God and His Prophet had intended all along. Another ISIS
fighter from South Africa, when asked how he knew that the Islamic State was
legitimate, remarked that "I just used my brain."
"The truth is never endorsed by the masses," he said. "It's always the
smallest groups that are firm in truth. Migration becomes compulsory when a
caliphate is established on the foundations of Sharia Law, and Muslims around
the world have no valid excuse to remain amongst the infidels in enemy
lands."
This line of argument by members of the Islamic State and, to be sure,
numerous other Salafi-Jihadi movements creates a major dilemma for Muslim
communities around the world. How are they supposed to deal with violent
movements within their faith, tiny in number but claiming greater religious
authenticity, and greater claim to the truth? While this question and the
debate surrounding it has been a persistent undercurrent in Western societies
since 9/11 at least, the most recent spike in the conversation occurred after
Graeme Wood's cover story in the Atlantic and the numerous responses that
followed. It was a welcome conversation, even if, as Wood himself recently
noted, the "debate is mostly foolish."
It is indeed foolish for a few different reasons. Firstly, the debate is
largely between an "academic" view of Islam and the divisions within it,
peaceful or otherwise, and a normative view of Islam, which seeks to distance
the rigid, conservative, and violent forms of the religion from the one
practiced by the vast majority of Muslims around the world. To argue that
ISIS isn't "Islamic" in a normative sense is to argue, to some degree, that
Salafism isn't a branch of Islam and that jihad isn't a noble concept in the
religion, arguments that are false and misleading, and severely hinder
attempts to understand these movements properly.
While there was some discussion following 9/11 about whether "Al-Qaeda was
Islamic", the debate wasn't as heated as it is today with the Islamic State.
Al-Qaeda was in many ways easier to set aside – they were strange men with
beards living in far off caves. When Muslim youth in Western countries join
in significant enough numbers, it raises the question of Islamic authenticity
more acutely. This happens even though Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are not
all that different in their commitment to violent Salafi theology. The only
difference, as Cole Bunzel recently pointed out, is that ISIS practices it
"with greater severity."
Secondly, what has been missing from virtually all the articleswritten on the
topic thus far is a sustained analysis of ISIS primary documents and actual
interviews with jihadi fighters in Syria and Iraq. Looking at ISIS documents,
murals, billboards, media releases, and other publications, as well
conducting interviews with fighters themselves, offers the best insight into
the sources of inspiration for the group's ideology, which defies simple
characterizations. Most broadly, ISIS' ideology is based on a narrative that
is well-known, that the Muslim world has been in decline due to the lack of a
Caliphate under which Muslims can fulfill their faith by living according to
Islamic Law. The state of the Muslim world today is contrasted with an
idealized period of history – the so-called 'Golden Age' of Islam, not only
referring to the 'rightly-guided' caliphs who immediately succeeded Muhammad
but also the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates extending through the medieval
period that saw the Muslim world further ahead in scientific and human
development than the West.
As a result of this projection onto an idealized medieval period, ISIS
documents and publications do not adopt a mere 'back to basic sources'
approach (in this case, the Qur'an and Sunna embodied in the hadith and life
of the Prophet). Rather, great emphasis is placed on showing respect for the
rulings and opinions of authorities of the four traditional schools of Sunni
jurisprudence developed during the medieval period. To be sure, that does not
mean no authority is given to modern jihadist thinkers or the Salafi-Wahhabi
purist 'reform' trend dating back to the 18th century often invoked to
describe ISIS' inspiration.
While statements by Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, Sayyid Qutb, and
Wahhabi scholars can all be found in detail in ISIS documents and
publications, there are also considerable documents citing opinion from the
four schools of Islamic legal tradition. For example, in a statement
distributed in the Fallujah area on offering prayers on Eid al-Adha and Eid
al-Fitr, three differing categories of opinion are given on whether the
prayers are obligatory, citing all four schools to illustrate the range. In
other instances, the concept of ijmaa (consensus) among the Ahl al-'Ilm
(theologians, jurists etc.) is stressed, such as in a Friday sermon for
Ninawa province mosques on the division of the world into the abodes of Islam
and disbelief.
One could go on, but it is in the realm of IS fatwas in particular – issued
by its Diwan al-Eftaa wa al-Buhuth – where the impressive ability to find
opinions from medieval jurists and theologians is laid bare. Many of them are
unknown to most of the outside world, including contemporary Muslims. The
best example is the fatwa ISIS issued to justify burning alive the Jordanian
pilot, deemed an 'apostate'. Many were quick to say this practice is
absolutely condemned in Islam, but ISIS cited Hanafi and Shafi'i jurist
opinion to claim it is permissible, including specific citation of a 15th
century Egyptian Shafi'i jurist.
Though the Islamic State's approach can be dismissed as "selective quoting"
of tradition, the fact remains that ISIS' critics can be accused of the same
thing. The problem is that with such a huge corpus of Islamic literature and
no central infallible authority like the Pope to regulate teachings, many of
ISIS' actions, seen as heinous in this day and age, can find a place within
the vastness of Islamic tradition. We may dismiss such evidence by claiming
that ISIS is only citing them in order gain legitimacy and credibility among
its followers, but that's precisely the point: they feel reassured that they
have a coherent theological basis in their actions. Of course it is
inaccurate to say that ISIS is Islam en bloc, but to label the movement
un-Islamic is to take a normative, and ultimately self-defeating, stance. It
is an argument which ignores some very basic evidence regarding the movement
and its history, and impedes proper understanding of what they believe and
where they are heading.
Add Comments