• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Islamic scholars conclude again that Islamic State is not Islamic, ignore Qur’anic teachings on which it bases its case

Mar 2, 2015 12:34 pm By Robert Spencer

Joas WagemakersThis article is one of many lately that try to show that the Islamic State is not Islamic — not to dissuade young Muslims from joining the Islamic State (there are no articles devoted to doing that), but to reassure non-Muslims that they have nothing to worry about in regard to rapidly increasing numbers of Muslims in their countries, and to keep them ignorant and complacent regarding the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.

And while it would be just great if the Islamic State weren’t Islamic, this article reveals itself to be a useless exercise that doesn’t deliver on its title when it notes that there are “tens of thousands of Muslims eager to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State group,” and that “an estimated 20,000 have streamed into the territory in Iraq and Syria.” For when “the vast majority of Muslim clerics say the group cherry picks what it wants from Islam’s holy book, the Quran, and from accounts of Muhammad’s actions and sayings, known as the Hadith” and “then misinterprets many of these, while ignoring everything in the texts that contradicts those hand-picked selections,” those clerics are saying that tens of thousands of young Muslims are so poorly instructed in their faith that they cannot recognize the Islamic State’s interpretation of Islam as a cherry-picked, misinterpreted travesty of the real thing.

If this “vast majority of Muslim clerics” can so easily explain this to non-Muslim journalists and politicians, why have they so signally failed to explain it to these 20,000 Muslims who have already streamed into the Islamic State’s territories, and to the tens of thousands of Muslims eager to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State?

More below.

“How Islamic is Islamic State group? Not very, experts say,” by Lee Keath and Hamza Hendawi, Associated Press, March 2, 2015:

CAIRO (AP) — Three British schoolgirls believed to have gone to Syria to become “jihadi” brides. Three young men charged in New York with plotting to join the Islamic State group and carry out attacks on American soil. A masked, knife-wielding militant from London who is the face of terror in videos showing Western hostages beheaded.

They are among tens of thousands of Muslims eager to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State group. An estimated 20,000 have streamed into the territory in Iraq and Syria where the group has proclaimed what it calls a “caliphate” ruled by its often brutal version of Islamic law.

But how rooted in Islam is the ideology embraced by this group that has inspired so many to fight and die?

President Barack Obama has insisted the militants behind a brutal campaign of beheadings, kidnappings and enslavement are “not Islamic” and only use a veneer of Islam for their own ends. Obama’s critics argue the extremists are intrinsically linked to Islam. Others insist their ideology has little connection to religion.

The group claims for itself the mantle of Islam’s earliest years, purporting to recreate the conquests and rule of the Prophet Muhammad and his successors. But in reality its ideology is a virulent vision all its own, one that its adherents have created by plucking selections from centuries of traditions.

The vast majority of Muslim clerics say the group cherry picks what it wants from Islam’s holy book, the Quran, and from accounts of Muhammad’s actions and sayings, known as the Hadith. It then misinterprets many of these, while ignoring everything in the texts that contradicts those hand-picked selections, these experts say.

The group’s claim to adhere to the prophecy and example of Muhammad helps explain its appeal among young Muslim radicals eager to join its ranks. Much like Nazi Germany evoked a Teutonic past to inspire its followers, Islamic State propaganda almost romantically depicts its holy warriors as re-establishing the caliphate, contending that ideal of Islamic rule can come only through blood and warfare.

It maintains its worst brutalities — beheading captives, taking women and girls as sex slaves and burning to death a captured Jordanian pilot — only prove its purity in following what it contends is the prophet’s example, a claim that appalls the majority of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.

Beheading captives: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” (Qur’an 47:4)

Taking women and girls as sex slaves: “Certainly will the believers have succeeded: They who are during their prayer humbly submissive, and they who turn away from ill speech, and they who are observant of zakah, and they who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed” (Qur’an 23:1-6). “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50).

Burning the pilot to death: “So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you.” (Qur’an 2:194) If the pilot had dropped incendiary bombs on the Islamic State, this verse would justify their burning him to death: assaulting him in the same way he assaulted them.

Writings by the group’s clerics and ideologues and its English-language online magazine, Dabiq, are full of citations from Quranic verses, the Hadith and centuries of interpreters, mostly hard-liners.

But these are often taken far out of context, said Joas Wagemakers, an assistant professor of Islamic Studies at Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands, who specializes in Islamic militant thought.

Muslim scholars throughout history have used texts in a “decontextualized way” to suit their purposes, Wagemakers said. But the Islamic State goes “further than any other scholars have done. They represent the extreme,” he said.

It would be a mistake to conclude the Islamic State group’s extremism is the “true Islam” that emerges from the Quran and Hadith, he added….

IS not only misreads the texts it cites, most clerics say, it also ignores Quranic verses and a long body of clerical scholarship requiring mercy, preservation of life and protection of innocents, and setting out rules of war — all of which are binding under Islamic Shariah law.

These passages are all in there. The problem is that some Muslim authorities maintain that no non-Muslim can be innocent, and as per the Qur’an (“Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another but harsh to unbelievers” — 48:29), mercy is not to be extended to them. In other words, the Islamic State can make a case that it is not ignoring or misusing verses counseling mercy — and simply to posit their existence doesn’t change that or refute their case.

Many mainstream clerics compare the group to the Khawarij, an early sect that was so notorious for “takfir,” or declaring other Muslims heretics for even simple sins, that it was rejected by the faith. The Islamic State group denies that, but it draws heavily from 20th-century theories of “takfir” developed by hard-liners.

Part of the problem in countering the group’s ideology is that moderate clerics have struggled to come up with a cohesive, modern interpretation, especially of the Quranic verses connected to Muhammad’s wars with his enemies.

Indeed. In fact, they haven’t done so at all. Everyone in power in the West assumes that this case has long been made. It hasn’t.

Militants often point to the Quran’s ninth sura, or chapter, which includes calls for Muslims to “fight polytheists wherever you find them” and to subdue Christians and Jews until they pay a tax. Moderate clerics counter that these verses are linked to specifics of the time and note other verses that say there is “no force in religion.”

“Moderate clerics counter that these verses are linked to specifics of the time ” — this argument is specious on its face, since the Qur’an is supposed to be valid for all times. Also, it is non-traditional: Islamic authorities through the ages have held just the opposite, that the violent verses were the ones that were always valid. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, the eighth-century Muslim Ibn Ishaq, explains that defensive war was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.” The medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.” In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.

Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh ‘Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)

And as for the idea that the Qur’anic statement that “there is no force [or compulsion] in religion” (2:256) establishes that the Islamic State is un-Islamic, here again there are traditional Islamic authorities who support the Islamic State’s view. According to an early Muslim, Mujahid ibn Jabr, this verse was abrogated by Qur’an 9:29, in which the Muslims are commanded to fight against the People of the Book. Others, however, according to the Islamic historian Tabari, say that 2:256 was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax) and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29). 2:256 in this view doesn’t contradict the Islamic imperative to wage jihad against unbelievers because the aim of jihad is not the forced conversion of non-Muslims, but their subjugation within the Islamic social order.

This is not to say that these authorities are right and that the moderates are wrong. But the moderate clerics’ disagreement with the Islamic State doesn’t establish that the Islamic State is not Islamic. To establish that, these moderate clerics would have to show how the Islamic State is actually misinterpreting the Qur’an and Sunnah — but the “misinterpretations” they delinerate in this article are actually positions held by mainstream Islamic scholars through the centuries.

And while moderate clerics counter the Islamic State group’s interpretation point-by-point, at times they accept the same tenets.

Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb — the grand imam of Egypt’s Al-Azhar, one of Sunni Islam’s most prestigious seats of learning — denounced the burning of the Jordanian pilot as a violation of Islam. But then he called for the perpetrators to be subjected to the same punishment that IS prescribes for those who “wage war on Islam” — crucifixion, death or the amputation of hands and legs.

Neither the Islamic State nor al-Tayeb originated those punishments. They’re from the Qur’an: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment” (5:33)

This turns the debate into one over who has the authority to determine the “correct” interpretation of Islam’s holy texts. Since many of the most prominent clerics in the Middle East are part of state-run institutions, militant supporters dismiss them as compromised and accommodating autocratic rulers.

There is no one who can determine the “correct” interpretation of Islam’s holy texts. What moderate clerics need to do is confront and refute on Islamic grounds the jihadists’ understanding of Islam. Instead, they generally ignore the evidence upon which the jihadists base their case, and then flatly assert to people like AP reporters that the jihadists are un-Islamic.

The Islamic State group’s segregation of the sexes, imposition of the veil on women, destruction of shrines it considers heretical, hatred of Shiites and condoning of punishments like lashings or worse are accepted by clerics in U.S.-allied Saudi Arabia, who follow the ultraconservative Wahhabi interpretation of Islam.

But IS goes further.

For example, most militaries in the era of Muhammad — the 7th century — beheaded enemies and enslaved populations they captured in war, including taking women as concubines. There are citations in the Hadith of Muhammad or his successors ordering beheadings, and verses in the Quran set out rules for dealing with slaves.

Pivoting off these, the Islamic State group contends that anyone who rejects beheadings or enslavement is not a real Muslim and has been corrupted by modern Western ideas.

One Islamic State cleric, Sheikh Hussein bin Mahmoud, wrote a vehement defense of beheadings after the killing of American journalist James Foley.

“Those who pervert Islam are not those who cut off the heads of disbelievers and terrorize them,” he wrote, “but those who want (Islam) to be like Mandela or Gandhi, with no killing, no fighting, no blood or striking necks.”

Islam, he wrote, is the religion “of battle, of cutting heads, of shedding blood.”

To support beheadings, the group cites the Quran as calling on Muslims to “strike the necks” of their enemies. But other clerics counter the verse means Muslim fighters should swiftly kill enemies in the heat of battle, and is not a call to execute captives. Moreover, IS ignores the next part of the verse, which says Muslims should set prisoners of war free as an act of charity or for ransom.

Yet the Islamic State has obviously not ignored that part of the verse: they offered to ransom Foley and the Jordanian pilot, and were rebuffed. But the fact that they made the attempt shows that they do understand ransom to be one of the options they have for captives.

And so this is yet another in an endless barrage of articles claiming that the Islamic State is not Islamic but not dealing with the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah upon which the Islamic State makes its case. Despite their failure, there will be many more such articles, because with every new jihad atrocity, reality threatens to break through. It wasn’t accidental that Hitler’s Reich had an entire Ministry of Propaganda: lying to the public is a full-time job, as the cleverest of propaganda constructs is always threatened by the simple facts.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: academia, Featured, Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, Daesh), Jihad doctrine, journalistic bias, Useful idiots Tagged With: Joas Wagemakers, Khaled Abou El Fadl


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. mariam rove says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    Where do these people come from? Mars? What version of Islam have they studied? Which version of the Koran have they studied? m

    • Spot On says

      Mar 2, 2015 at 2:31 pm

      They also believe that global warming is a bigger threat. They are illogical fools and just plain nuts.

      • mariam rove says

        Mar 2, 2015 at 2:44 pm

        Yes. And that why we are freezing our…. and Boston only got 20 feet of snow! Morons!!!m

        • Champ says

          Mar 2, 2015 at 6:30 pm

          Mariam, I’m in SoCal so please throw me a snowball! ..lol! I love the snow 🙂

      • mortimer says

        Mar 2, 2015 at 5:04 pm

        The ‘experts’ they cite are the minority of ‘Koran-only’ Muslims who want to reform Islam by chopping out the hadiths. However, removing the hadiths creates as many problems again. Their is no context in the Koran without the hadiths and there is virtually no religion of Islam, either in the Koran, except for commands to fight and kill disbelievers and obey the messenger. Without the hadiths, no one knows how to ‘obey’ Mohammed.

    • gravenimage says

      Mar 2, 2015 at 6:14 pm

      Oh, they’ve studied the real thing, miriam—they just know that most of the credulous Infidels haven’t, and figure they can fool most of us pretty easily—especially when it’s what we want to hear…

  2. jihad3tracker says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 1:09 pm

    Here is the simple five word question to ask these self-styled experts : “WHY WOULD ISIS DISPLEASE ALLAH ?”

    The fighters in ISIS, like all devout Muslims, believe the Qur’an is THE DIRECT WORD OF GOD — revealed by Muhammad. When they are not busy immolating, beheading, raping and shooting children, women, and men, their “holy” books are read for further motivation.

    We can be sure that if some ISIS members were “cherry picking” verses — IN A WAY WHICH DISTORTED ALLAH’S COMMANDS, THUS BRINGING HIS WRATH DOWN UPON THEM — those members would be told in absolutely certain terms to stop that conduct.

  3. john spielman says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    more liars and deceivers from the religion of allah(Satan to nonmulsims) or possibly simply academic whores who may believe the trash they talk

  4. Angemon says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    How Islamic is Islamic State group? Not very, experts say

    This is (from less to more likely) ignorance, naiveness or malice, and it rightfully deserves to be called out and exposed. Kudos and many thanks to Robert Spencer for his tireless work in behalf of the counter-jihad movement.

  5. john spielman says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    oops that should read” may or may NOT believe…”

  6. Beagle says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    Unless something is quoted in its entirety, it is “taken out of context.” Merely saying so is a truism, not an argument. In order to make it an argument one must explain the supposed context.

    IS would say Sura Nine is the eternal command, and being last in time abrogates the peaceful bits. That no apologist ever addresses this is more than a bit suspicious.

    In one way this article is a great triumph for critics of Islam. Finally, after years of diversions, mainstream media accepts the importance of theology. In years past I read hundreds of economic deterministic articles and pap about “alienation” and “marginalization”.

    AP: still wrong, but less so.

  7. Ricky Black says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    Fact: 57 Islam muslims country’s and not ONE has ever built an airplane, a car, or not even a toy for their kids. Why is that

  8. Ricky Black says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    If you tell a muslim boy over and over again that he is ( better than his sister), ( better then the disbelievers) ( better than everybody else)… well when he grows up a realizes that is NOT TRUE, that has a profound affect on a human being. You will get hyper sensitivity, denial of any wrong doing on his part, and most of all you will get hatred for everybody else.

    • Ricky Black says

      Mar 2, 2015 at 2:18 pm

      Fact, Allah is a pagan moon goddess that is marred to the sun and has three daughters, Ai-Uzza, Al-Lat, and Manat. Fact: Muhammad’s father’s name was Abd-Allah, His uncle’s name was Obied-Allah. Encyclopedia Britannica I:643 Fact; Muhammad worshiped the meteorite in Mecca, the greatest god, because there is more than one.

  9. Jay Boo says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    I recommend that he offer a lecture up to ISIS
    When he buys his plane ticket he might be wise not to spend extra on a they round trip ticket and purchase the cheaper one-way ticket.

  10. Renee says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 3:38 pm

    Hey Dutch boy, good luck in Caliphate Hollandistan

  11. Angemon says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 4:12 pm

    How Islamic is Islamic State group? Not very, experts say

    You know what? That neede fixing.

    How Islamic is Islamic State group? Not very, experts say*[citation needed]

    * which experts, when and where?

    Much better 😀

  12. lebel says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 5:28 pm

    “why have they so signally failed to explain it to these 20,000 Muslims who have already streamed into the Islamic State’s territories, and to the tens of thousands of Muslims eager to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State?”

    Lets be honest, 20,000 out of 1,6 billion is not exactly a landslide. It does look like…dare I say it? a tiny minority of extremists who have misunderstood Islam.

    *ducks*

    • gravenimage says

      Mar 2, 2015 at 6:44 pm

      The repellent Muslim apologist lebel wrote:

      “why have they so signally failed to explain it to these 20,000 Muslims who have already streamed into the Islamic State’s territories, and to the tens of thousands of Muslims eager to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State?”

      Lets be honest, 20,000 out of 1,6 billion is not exactly a landslide. It does look like…dare I say it? a tiny minority of extremists who have misunderstood Islam.
      ………………………………..

      Why is lebel trying to pretend that it is only pious Muslims actively performing Hijira to the Islamic State who are “extremists”? Firstly, the Islamic State has only been around for a couple of years. That number he cites is apt to continue mushrooming—it has already been growing exponentially. And he is not counting the Islamic State itself, and all those Muslims who either invaded initially or who joined enthusiastically afterward.

      Nor is is he counting the pious Muslims who belong to *other* Jihad groups such as Boko Haram, Al Qaida, the Taliban, or any of the other hundreds of Jihad groups waging Jihad terror. Neither, of course, is he counting all of the “ordinary” Muslims who are regularly kidnapping, oppressing, and killing Infidels and the “insufficiently Islamic” in places like Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Also, he is not counting that myriad “lone wolf” Jihadists in the West and other parts of Dar-al-Harb, who are busy raping, robbing, and murdering Infidels.

      Moreover, he is not counting the huge numbers of Muslims who are financially supporting the Caliphate and the waging of violent Jihad through Zakat. Nor is he taking into account the vast numbers of Muslims who want to see the imposition of Shari’ah law—may of whom are using stealth Jihad to attain that end. For instance, in the United States—which is usually considered to have a “moderate” Muslim population—*59%* of Muslims believe that Muslim-majority countries should be under Shari’ah law. Statistics in other places are much worse.

      Ultimately, the shear numbers involved answer my initial question. The egregious lebel simply doesn’t want us “filthy Infidels” to know just how many Muslims support Jihad and the imposition of Shari’ah law.

  13. Ricky Black says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    there isn’t 1.6 billon in the west. Most of them are already over there. dud

  14. gravenimage says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    Islamic scholars conclude again that Islamic State is not Islamic, ignore Qur’anic teachings on which it bases its case
    ……………………………………

    This is mostly Taqiyya, aimed at lulling the “filthy Kuffar” into a false sense of security.

    At *best* it is Takfir, where rival Muslims are declared essentially non-Muslims, and hence fair game to be treated like Infidels—i.e., killed. This is not necessarily done on ideological grounds—that is, Muslims like the Saudis may simply consider ISIS upstarts, whom they are not going to allow to threaten their guardianship of the “Two Holy Places” (or, for that matter, control of all those oil fields…).

    More:

    According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . .
    ……………………………………

    In other words, *all* non-Muslims.

    More:

    And as for the idea that the Qur’anic statement that “there is no force [or compulsion] in religion” (2:256) establishes that the Islamic State is un-Islamic, here again there are traditional Islamic authorities who support the Islamic State’s view. According to an early Muslim, Mujahid ibn Jabr, this verse was abrogated by Qur’an 9:29, in which the Muslims are commanded to fight against the People of the Book. Others, however, according to the Islamic historian Tabari, say that 2:256 was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax) and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29). 2:256 in this view doesn’t contradict the Islamic imperative to wage jihad against unbelievers because the aim of jihad is not the forced conversion of non-Muslims, but their subjugation within the Islamic social order.
    ……………………………………

    Isn’t *this* lovely—one of the few genuine disagreements among Muslim “scholars” is whether all Jews and Christians should be murdered, or whether crushing oppression, humiliation, arbitrary threat, and periodic violence under their Muslim overlords is sufficient. *Ugh*,

  15. eib says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 6:35 pm

    Graeme Wood has interacted with the reality of the Islamic State. I defy every one of these intellectual choirboys to go to Ar Raqqa right now and see for themselves if the IS is Muslim or not.

  16. isntlam says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 8:19 pm

    Very helpful analysis, Robert. This is the only way to overcome the propaganda.

  17. traci94 says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 10:11 pm

    Here is a Princeton scholar who says that the ISIS is very islamic

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhkP–UV9yk

    His name is Bernard Haykel. He was quoted in the recent Atlantic article, What ISIS really wants.

    Islam is inherently violent. Look at all the Islamic countries in the world, historically and now – they treat women horribly, they are huge human rights violators, there always seems to be utter chaos, they despise America and Israel, etc. Really, about 99.9% of terrorism is committed in the name of Islam. How are all these different people, in all different parts of the world, misinterpreting Islam in the same way?? Wow! What a coincidence.

    I firmly believe that we should name this problem and call it what it is, and I am tired of people trying to convince everyone that Islam is not the problem and ISIS has hijacked the faith. However, arguing, about semantics seems to keep us in a tailspin instead of developing a strategy. Let’s just deal with the fact that they are beheading people, burning people alive, raping women, crucifying people, and growing at a rapid rate and develop SOME KIND of strategy for putting an end to this violence. It seems that our policy is just to sit and wait and hope it all just goes away.

  18. truth wiz says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 10:36 pm

    Thanks Robert. Was discussing this article with the wife — glad to see you have it covered.

  19. Baucent says

    Mar 3, 2015 at 1:18 am

    ISIS are muslims. That’s all I need to know.

  20. wtd says

    Mar 3, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    Thought you might be interested – in case you missed it…

    Sean Hannity Radio Show Recap: Mar 2nd
    4:30PM EST – Jeff Gardner a Medieval Historian and Director of Communications for Restore Nineveh Now.ORG &​ Dr. Faheem Younus, President of the Ammadiya Muslim Men Association debated the speech being hosted by Congress tomorrow for the Prime Minister and the meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry with the Iranian Foreign Minister in Geneva, and how these two events happening simultaneously are a clear example of how backwards America’s priorities are at this point.

    Read more: http://www.hannity.com/articles/shows-472046/radio-show-recap-mar-2nd-13353599#ixzz3TKsV8wUl

    Gardner was solid in his responses and may be worthy a thread to encourage more programming expressing these facts.

  21. Licretius says

    Mar 3, 2015 at 9:31 pm

    The only way to understand Islam is not to think about it. Allah knows, and all of his believers do not know.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Hoi Polloi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • OLD GUY on Why so many Muslims can’t wait for Biden to get inaugurated
  • gravenimage on Iranian top dogs approve bill to end UN nuclear inspections, increase enrichment
  • OLD GUY on Biden vows to surrender to Iran, then negotiate
  • Peter Clemerson on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.