What ISIS Really Wants: Rebuttal

This week, we were assigned to read the article, “What ISIS Really Wants.” While this article seemed well – intentioned in trying to reach a conclusion about the violent organization that continues to threaten Western sanctity, it fell severely short. Here’s why.

This article began by saying that in order to understand ISIS and the conflict in the Middle East, we first need to understand Islam and have better cultural awareness.

True. Being able to understand another actor, their background and core intentions is the key to finding peaceful resolution.

It continued to reference specific quotations made by the Prophet Muhammad and certain law codes that instructed Muslims to destroy all other races to create a pure Islamic State.

Not exactly.

The author clearly has no understanding of Islam or its origins and does not grasp the concept that Muhammad was the prophet of many, and was seen as a prophet following Moses and Jesus Christ. Islam was created and is regarded as the third key religion of the books, and was not intended to cause harm and “kill all infidels.” In nature and teaching, is a peaceful religion, based on five pillars regarding prayer, devotion, respect, charity and traditional fasting.

The violent connotations arise from the author’s misunderstanding of the origin of Islam. Islam came around in the time of warring city-states and tribes. Therefore death and warfare were quite common, and historically explain the references in the text. What the author is unknowingly citing when stating the instructions and beliefs of Mohammed is the Sunnah, a social law code enacted after the passing of the prophet of his words, actions and teachings that was conceived after his death in the 9th century of Christian times, or the 800s. Each contribution is called a Hadith, and they were passed down for the two centuries until they were recorded in the Sunnah. While the majority have direct correlation to the prophet and were proven through tedious background checks at the time, there a large amount that were accepted without cross referencing due to genetic ties to the prophet. Therefore, some Hadith are dramatic misrepresentations of the prophet’s teachings. Misinterpretations were also influenced by different law courts and scholars across different city states, cultural lines, etc. But that is a topic for another time.

The idea of Jihad has been taken out of context and presented to frighten the western world. If one reads the Sunnah, Jihad is a call from Allah to serve him. It valued men who died for their faith, and were willing to sacrifice themselves in conflict. As referenced in other religions, dying for your faith is of the highest regard to your God. (If you do not believe me, here’s the entire collection of Hadiths regarding Jihad: http://sunnah.com/bukhari/56.) The same claim is represented in Christianity: when god calls, you answer. However, Islam was repressed at the time of its creation so several believers were martyrs. While these brave actions would be grounds for canonization in Christianity, this is ground for labeling the original believers as extremists who will kill for their faith (See Revelations 2:10 ‘Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.) All that was intended and inferred from a full reading of the Hadiths, is that Allah rewards those who die in his name: An identical practice to Christianity.

Don’t believe me? Reference the story of the first Martyr, Stephen, here in Acts 7:
54 Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. 55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing pat the right hand of God. 56 And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing pat the right hand of God.” 57 But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together2 at him. 58 Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments vat the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, z“Lord, do not hold this sin against them.”

Now that we have confirmed this is a common theme across an influential religion in the United States, let’s continue to understand violence in the Middle East.

The violent nature emerged in modern days not-so-coincidentally following the division of the Middle East into countries that did not acknowledge cultural identities, warring tribes, and past ailments. With a ruler, the West divided the Arabian Peninsula and the warring began between rival religions, tribes and sects. People were being killed for their religious identities and practices. This is quite literally another example of religious war and persecution, not an Islamic conquest. At the turn of the century, the idea for an Islamic State arose from Egypt’s Nasser and was pursued as it seemed to promise the most safety for Muslims. Yes, this should make you think of the creation of Israel and the need for a Jewish state and Israel.

As violence has progressed and tensions have risen between the West and Middle East, it is easy to see how teachings are applicable as we are threatening and warring against “Islam” due to a poor misunderstanding of the religion and are interpretations of what freedom is. While I do not deny human rights violations that have occurred, or graphic instances that continue, it is essential to view these through an educated lens to understand that Muslims are called to answer the next prophet, (See al-Bagdadhi’s speech referenced in the Atlantic Article ), and are being martyrs for their religion, as our soldiers are being martyrs for our unanimous belief: freedom.

To save time and your eyes from reading more seemingly irrelevant history, I trust that you can review modern and post Vietnam conflict from a more informed perspective.

Graeme Wood preaches the need for cultural enlightenment, but his explanation of the culture is written through his tainted, uninformed lens and lack of historical understanding. Misunderstandings like these continue to perpetrate a negative perception of Islam, when a simple conversation holds the key to better negotiations. While it is not his fault for receiving news through one sided media and an elementary understanding of Islam, his ignorance on the topic allows for misinformation to persist. His claims do not hold true the scientific ideals of correlation and causation. Just because ISIS is a terrorist faction with Muslim extremists as the primary actors, it does not mean that Islam in its entirety is the reason for the violence. An internal application of this would be the KKK to Christianity. Only extreme and violent views that are not held by the majority of Christians are portrayed by the hate group, yet people do not tie the religion in the way that they do with Islam.