"Moderate" Muslims are not taking on ISIS ideologically. Why?

Question: what is your thinking as to why we don't see a large, on-going effort to counter ISIS (The Islamic State) ideologically by "moderate" Muslims? I'm not talking about militarily, but ideologically. I'm not asking if they oppose ISIS, or oppose terrorism, I'm asking why don't they counter ISIS's atrocities ideologically, to a large degree. Why is there not a ground-swell of Muslims showing how ISIS gets Islam all wrong?

My own thinking is skeptical. Is it because they do realize that the Islamic text do indeed approve of the things that ISIS is doing? Be-headings, rape of captives, pedophilia, slavery, etc. are approved of in the Islamic texts, for example.

 

ISIS has been condemned by Muslims all over the world.

 

you have been shown time and again Islamic leaders who condemn ISIS, armies of Muslim countries fighting in Syria and the fact that no one from any of the Islamic groups in the west supporting them but you continue to just lie on this board. It is pathetic.

 

Ronstar and Karma, obviously I foresaw your mistake, so please realize that I wrote "I'm not asking if they oppose ISIS, or oppose terrorism, I'm asking why don't they counter ISIS's atrocities ideologically, to a large degree. Why is there not a ground-swell of Muslims showing how ISIS gets Islam all wrong?"

I'm asking why don't they counter ISIS IDEOLOGICALLY, showing precisely how ISIS is apparently "un-Islamic", saying exactly just how they get ISLAM wrong. Why don't they to THAT? My thinking is that they can't, because ISIS is more Muslim (follow Mohammad more closely) than those "moderates" are.

If Modern Secular Humanist were taking slaves (like ISIS is), and justifying it with a Richard Dawkins book, then I'm sure that Dawkins followers would call them out and seek endless debates as to how that was patently FALSE....but Muslims are not doing that with ISIS, because the Qur'an does advocate slavery. See what I mean?

 

In my opinion this would be the result of multiple factors:

1) To speak out in unison would be to oppose the words of their own holy book.
2) A lack of courage.
3) An understanding that they are as powerless as everyone else to do anything.
4) A hidden and latent celebration when non believers are targeted.

 

Would #1 and #4 imply that Islam is evil?

 

Why don't they specifically condemn ISIS IDEOLOGICALLY/ISLAMICALLY, Karma? If ISIS is so "un-Islamic" then that should be super easy to do, right, using the Qur'an etc.?

 

I suppose it would, though Christianity isn't all that much better......the Christians just don't have as big of a set and grew up a bit.

 

On that we can all agree.......Christians nor Muslims have the moral courage to improve their texts that (incredibly) say to enslave, rape, plunder (Moses, especially), torture (including Jesus seeing that non-believers are tortured in the "after-life" - did Hitler torture all Jews or only Jesus will do that?), discriminate against women, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

- - - Updated - - -

If Islam is likely evil, then why do Bush and Obama both say it's a peaceful wonderful religion, when the truth is clearly otherwise?

 

More parochial jingoistic nonsense based on ignorance.

Muslims do speak out against Islamist religious perversion all the time.

been to a mosque lately? Read any muslim nation newspapers? Seen any arab media reporting?
did you happen to notice that Pakistan lifted its moratorium on the death penalty specifically to counter the Taliban and the other Islamist nutbars they are dealing with? (they have over 500 of them in custody awaiting hanging).


What seems to be completely lost on the islamophobes is that the VAST MAJORITY of people dying at the hands of islamist ********s are fellow muslims.

 

Yep, that makes Islam a religion of peace, for sure, yep.

Maybe Pakistan has SYMPATHY for the Jihadists, so that's why they'd do away with the death penalty for them!

Under Sharia Law, Muslims enjoy higher rights than the rest of us.

- - - Updated - - -

How can they ISLAMICALLY refute ISIS's use of be-heading? ISIS's use of rape of captives? ISIS's killing of apostates? Islamically?

- - - Updated - - -

"Phobia" is an unrealistic fear.....so "Islamorealists" is a more accurate term.

 

These radical muslims kill other non radical muslims all the time. The non radicals ones probably don't want to have their own heads chopped off. A survival deal.

 

"They are UnIslamic!", they say. But they don't specifically say HOW, by specifically countering the specific verse used by ISIS/Boko/AQ/Taliban to justify their latest atrocity. That's because all those atrocities are being committed by people who very very VERY closely follow Islam.....ISIS can hardly turn around without asking themselves "what would Mohammad do" (not just regarding committing atrocities, but in everyday life, doing normal/good things, as well.)

- - - Updated - - -

Muslims are just following the Qur'an, so can we really blame them? (Unless of course we believe that the Qur'an is not from "god")

Qur'an 8:12:
I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.

Qur'an 47:4:
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens.

 

There are tons of different answers to this question. First, there are those who oppose the statements you make. For instance, there is an effort to counter IS ideologically, (just referring to the IS wikipage paragraphs Islamic Criticism and Theological objections).

Then there are answers relating to how much ideological countering there should be, for instance, I have not seen a lot of ideological criticism against the Westboro Baptist Church by churches. Do you spend a lot of time refuting atheistic communists on religion-related grounds? Many who don't consider IS a part of their beliefs will not even think of the idea that others might group them together and that refuting is in order (compare you and atheistic communists).

Then there are issues concerning your phrasing "why we don't see", ie. whether or not you should expect to see such criticism, as a non-IS sympathiser. I have heard of ideological countering of violent Islam being brought up in Islamic youth groups. Now, not being a part of such a group, I have not actually seen this first hand, so I would not expect such criticism, however existent, to influence my view of how much criticism there is.

There are of course other things to take into account, including the things you bring up. Religions, or any strongly held belief, or frankly even not so strongly held belief, usually cause their proponents to not look too closely at areas where they suspect dodgy. I experience this myself when looking over my snack budget. It's a part of human nature. However, there can also be things like not wanting to align oneself with other forces which oppose IS, such as the local governments. I'm sure there is more to say on the subject, my main point is that you'd have to provide more detailed assessments of the situation to make the claims which allude to (albeit you avoid actually making, a bit like the Ancient Aliens not actually making weird claims, just asking poignantly "could it be that...?").

Edit: It should be pointed out that my opposition to your post is not a defence of Islam. It has two purposes, one is that people walking around hating Muslims, however well justified by association to actually violent Muslims, isn't actually going to solve anything, just serve to escalate situations which would then be escalated back onto us (by which I mean things like the US or "the west"), the other is that when Muslims actually doubt Islam, I want them finding good arguments, not arguments where they will easily think "you don't seem to have the full picture, criticism against Islam seems not to not know what they're talking about" and then not look closer.

 

Again, just a broad denunciation, not specific objections as to why ISIS is not Islamic. "They are not Islamic!" won't cut it anymore, we need specifics on this, and their lack of this is very very telling.

"ISIS invoked Qur'an 5:33 in a case of two people being crucified in Raqqa for supposedly carrying out an IED attack against ISIS. The Quran passage stipulates that, among a number of punishments, those who "wage war on God and His Messenger" may be crucified."
http://www.meforum.org/3833/syria-islamist-crucifixion
Let's see them condemn Qur'an 5:33!

 

Because both need to be as PC as possible to get elected. If everyone decided to be completely honest with themselves and those around them No One On Earth would be religious.

 

Exactly, proving my point. The Bible in many places says to kill gays, so WBC is just following the Bible, like ISIS is following the Islamic texts. WBC are just more honest Christians than "moderate" Christians are, when it comes to their religious texts. Just like ISIS is more honest/pious than "moderate" Muslims are.

 

Phobia [or fear] is a sign of weakness and inferiority. I don't feel inferior to Islam, so I don't fear it.

This was for accuracy.

Then, I'm always surprised that on a political forum there is who doesn't understand politics [geopolitics]. If Bush, Obama [or Santa Claus] declared that Islam is not a religion of peace, our countries will have the annoying perspective to start a further war against Islam [if Islam is not peace, the terror attacks can be considered acts of war against us by Muslim countries ... and so on ...]. It's centuries and centuries that we fight against Islam and honestly Christians will never get bored about [is there an incoming crusade? I will not lose the party!], but this global economy asks for equilibrium and absence of wide conflicts on large scale.

So, Bush, Obama [and Santa Claus] will keep on saying that Islam is a religion of peace.

 

That's fair. (Also, I added an edit to my last post, didn't know you'd see it so quickly )

Then that brings us to another set of conclusions, one about human nature and perhaps the nature of religions and similar beliefs, rather than specific religions. It would be that humans are flawed and prone to believe all kinds of things, that the best argument doesn't always win (which was even pointed out by Plato, so that's hardly a new observation).

It brings us to (or at least closer to) political views that I happen to adhere to, in political determinism and the provocatively named historical Marxism, both of which refer to the idea that humans aren't as free in politics as we might want. Consequentially, we shouldn't wander around blaming this or that (not because it's not their fault, but because blaming them is not going to help, but indeed make things worse).

- - - Updated - - -

Really? I've never heard that. My mother has a phobia of snakes, yet I have no reason to believe she is or sees herself as inferior to them.

 

You made some good points in the rest of that post.
Pointing out the faults, in a gentle but firm and relentless manner, is what gets people to change, so while I think you are one of the most reasoned/learned posters on this forum, I have to respectfully disagree with you on the snip above. For example we wouldn't worry that blaming the Nazis during WWII would have "made things worse"....no, we'd have gone full steam ahead in our condemnation of them - we failed to do that in WWII, let's not make the same mistake in this war (higher stakes, way more nukes out there!)
(I myself forget the "gentle" part usually, I'll admit.)

 

Actually at unconscious level ... to be afraid of an animal means that we consider it a potential danger of some kind [even if some phobia are irrational, but they are not based on superior thought], we don't consider the animals we can control potentially dangerous. There are many people who don't perceive dogs as dangerous, while there are others who see them as dangerous ... reality is that a big dog is potentially dangerous, but persons who realize that we can control them ... those persons are not afraid of dogs.

 

I think that I have to add that fear is justified in some cases. It's a mind process which makes us more cautious and more ready to react to any eventual threat.

But going back to the comparisons with the fear of dogs:

not all dogs are a potential threat for us, actually only a little percentage, so there is no rational reason to be afraid of all dogs.

About Muslims we could reason in a similar way [not to say that Muslims are dogs!]: to be afraid of Muslims in general is not only irrational, but not justified. To be afraid of some Muslim environments can be justified [at least for common people without the "instruments" to face eventual threats coming from those environments].

 

But to consider something dangerous is not to be or feel inferior to it, at least not in the way you refer to with respect to IS?

 

Good post, but can you tell us which Muslims today will run off to ISIS territory in the future and become barbaric in the name of Mohammad? How can they be identified? Obviously we don't know how to do that. The only thing that future ISIS/AQ/Boko, etc. recruits have in common today is a love for Mohammad.

 

Like this?

http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf

You would have to find some way of quantifying the amount of criticism, taking into account that it's not intended for you and nobody will have made an effort to let you know. Well, actually, you would additionally have to specify exactly what claim you'd be willing to make based on what extent of criticism. I'm not convinced that you'd expect criticism to be proportional to, well, anything. It pains me to give evidence in form of examples, but they are the only ones that come with specifics.