The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) is not Islamic, announced Barack Obama, during a White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism (with an emphasis on violence inspired by the Judeo-Christian tradition). “They [ISIS] are not religious leaders, they are terrorists,” he asserted—an assertion that begs the question, as it assumes that a terrorist cannot be a religious leader as well.
President Obama further ventured that when we call them “Islamic,” we grant ISIS the “legitimacy” for which they thirst. For they are “desperate to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam.” Yet another non sequitur: Christening the group Islamic or not is unlikely to change that its members and a good many Muslims across the Ummah regard ISIS as thoroughbred Islamic.
What else did Imam Obama—who professes Christianity—proclaim in the name of the ISIS Islamic eschatology? Obama claimed that ISIS has “perverted the religion [of Islam]” and that it is peddling a “twisted ideology used to incite others to violence.”
“Weighing in on matters of Islamic theological debate,” warns Graeme Wood, editor at The Atlantic, is something Western officials would probably do best to avoid. “When he claim[s] that the Islamic State [is] ‘not Islamic,’” Obama, in fact, has “drifted into takfiri waters,” explains Wood. For “non-Muslims cannot tell Muslims how to practice their religion properly.”
“In Islam, the practice of takfir, or excommunication, is theologically perilous,” cautions Wood, in a seminal exposé on the Islamic State entitled “What ISIS Really Wants.” “‘If a man says to his brother, ‘You are an infidel,’ the Prophet said, ‘then one of them is right.’ If the accuser is wrong, he himself has committed apostasy by making a false accusation. The punishment for apostasy is death.”
His theologically and existentially perilous practice of takfir, notwithstanding, Obama lies about ISIS being antagonistic to Islam. Wood portrays “the group [that] seized Mosul, Iraq, last June, and already rules an area larger than the United Kingdom,” as Islamic as the Prophet Muhammad of the later, Medina period. He decries as “dishonest” the “campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature” and that it is indeed following “specific traditions and texts of early Islam.” “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. … the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.”
Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, ‘the Prophetic methodology,’ which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail.
“We can gather that [the caliphate state] rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.”
And he has it on good authority. While Obama was offering up nostrums to the nation, Graeme Wood was speaking to leading authorities, among them “Bernard Haykel, the foremost secular authority on the Islamic State’s ideology.” This Princeton scholar “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 told Wood. “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.”
In Haykel’s estimation, the fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war. This behavior includes a number of practices that modern Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts. ‘Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,’ Haykel said. Islamic State fighters ‘are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.’ … Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically … ‘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, [says Haykel], are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”
Widely quoted in Wood’s ISIS exposé, Haykel takes a position not dissimilar to that of “the greatest theologian alive,” my appellation for Pope Benedict XVI. It is this: “The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take” to justify their belief that ISIS is un-Islamic “is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid. [And] That really would be an act of apostasy.”
Which is precisely what Obama persists in doing.
Until the Islamic reformation is codified, those in the know—know-nothing Obama is not among them—will look upon the Islamic State as a religious, literalist, millenarian, apocalyptic group that is as Islamic as the Prophet and his band of belligerents during the Medina years.
ILANA Mercer is a paleolibertarian writer, based in the United States. She pens WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, “Return to Reason.” She is a contributor to the preeminent libertarian site Economic Policy Journal and to Junge Freiheit, a German weekly of excellence. Ilana is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, an award-winning, independent, non-profit, free-market economic policy think tank. Ilana’s latest book is “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Her website is www.IlanaMercer.com. She blogs at www.barelyablog.com.
Barack Obama is not a Muslim (contrary to what some people think), indeed his mother sent him home from Indonesia partly because she thought his step father (who was a Muslim) was too pro American – although almost anyone was too pro American by the far left standards of Ann Dunham (every day hours long indoctrination sessions from his mother for young Barack – before she sent him back to the United States for further training with Frank Marshall Davis, the child never had a chance).
However, Barack Obama is from the Marxist tradition – and so regards all conventionally religious people as stupid. After all the silly people in the pews at “Holy Trinity” in Chicago were fooled by him (Barack) and Rev. J. Wright for DECADES – taking the Marxoid “Black Liberation Theology” they served up every week as Christianity. Why should not ordinary Muslims be just as easy to fool?
What people “really” want is “collective salvation” in this world (not a “mythical” individual after life) – income, health care, education, art (and on and on) in a wonderful new society. One can co-opt Islam for this Progressive goal – just as one can co-opt gullible Christians (of course to Barack Obama there is no such thing as a non gullible Christian).
The fact, and it is a fact, that many of the Islamist leaders (and even foot soldiers) are intelligent (as well as ruthless) men, who are not at all easy to fool or to co-opt does not occur to Barack Obama – or to most of his “Progressive” friends. They can tell Muslims what Islam “really” is (nothing to do with what Mohammed did – which, yes, was much like what I.S. is doing now) – and Muslims will believe them (or so Barack thinks), because religious people are stupid and easy to fool (or so Barack believes).
The mainstream of the Western Frankfurt School Marxists still think they can manipulate and control the Islamists (although they do accept they will have to kill some and Barack Obama is indeed quite happy to do that) – I suspect that it will end up the other way round.
This is not a question of a handful of fanatics with the rest of the followers of Mohammed being stupid and easy to manipulate by Barack Obama and co – reality is very different.
Although I agree with most of what you write I disagree that Barack Obama is not Muslim. Islam is a totalitarian political system no different than Marxism and Obama has been marinated in both and has a fondness for both. For him the mesh is perfect.
” Islam is a hyper-aggressive, militaristic, expansionist, totalitarian political system designed to create a super-rich micro-oligarchical ruling class with a massive, destitute, genetically handicapped underclass below. The paper-thin faux-religious facade was a conscious, specific con from the very beginning a pure racket using borrowed and piggy-backed religious motifs to lend credibility to a massive, loosely-knit network of crime syndicate cells.
Here is a quote from Osama bin Laden that sums it all up:
“Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue; one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice, and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam:  either willing submission [conversion]; or  payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or  the sword, for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”
–Osama Bin Laden
(The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)
Definition of suzerainty: a situation in which a region or people is a compulsory tributary to a more powerful entity, which controls its foreign affairs while allowing the tributary vassal state internal autonomy.
Please note that the quote above makes perfectly clear that islam DOES NOT CARE IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE ANY OF THEIR FAUX-RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT OR NOT – BECAUSE THAT’S NOT THE POINT. All that matters is EARTHLY submission and control of landmass.”
Furthermore, one would have to explain why he has been wearing for 30 years a ring on his finger that expresses one of the two fundamental beliefs that make a person a Muslim: There is no god but Allah.
and in regards to Trinity Church and Rev. Wright. Wright and Louis Farrahkhan are very close and Wright “was a muslim” who happened to leave Islam and start a “Christian” church that preaches Black Liberation theology (Marxism) and Obama just happened to attend an “ex-muslim’s” new “Christian” Church.
He believes the call to prayer one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset and he can recite the arabic call to prayer with a first rate accent.
He’s a muslim who practices al-Taqiyya.
[…] if you want to,” but all was forgiven and forgotten. The president’s latest lies are that ISIS is un-Islamic and that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.” These fables […]