In a lengthy article in the Atlantic that raises troubling questions about Islam, Graeme Wood seeks to divine What ISIS Really Wants. The short answer is that the Islamic State (the preferred terminology at FPIF Focal Points) is attempting to fulfill an end-times prophecy from early Islam as by-the-book as possible. Since we may re-visit this article, which is as enlightening as it is controversial, in a future post or two, we will focus on just one of Wood’s themes today — that the Islamic State, considered by many to be a perversion of Islam, actually hews closely to Islamic teachings (however archaic).
First, a small objection: It’s odd that Wood acts as if he’s one of the first to claim that the Islamic State closely adheres to early Islamic teachings when it’s common knowledge. The real issue is that, like Al Qaeda and fundamentalist movements of all stripes, the Islamic State refuses to view its early teachings through a prism of a sort of cultural — or more accurately in this case, temporal — relativism. Wood writes:
Centuries have passed since the wars of religion ceased in Europe, and since men stopped dying in large numbers because of arcane theological disputes. Hence, perhaps, the incredulity and denial with which Westerners have greeted news of the theology and practices of the Islamic State.
… In the past, Westerners who accused [Islamists of recent years] of blindly following ancient scriptures came to deserved grief from academics—notably the late Edward Said—who pointed out that calling Muslims “ancient” was usually just another way to denigrate them.
… Many mainstream Muslim organizations have gone so far as to say the Islamic State is, in fact, un-Islamic. It is, of course, reassuring to know that the vast majority of Muslims have zero interest in replacing Hollywood movies with public executions as evening entertainment. But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “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, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”
Furthermore, Haykel
… 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 said. “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.”
Yikes, right?
In Haykel’s estimation, the fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war. … “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.”
The knee-jerk reaction of many may be to slam Wood and Haykel as Islamophobes. And it’s true that the National Review Online’s David French has already called Wood’s piece, the “most important article I’ve yet read about ISIS and Islam.” But Islam owning up to and renouncing its violent origins might be key to undermining the appeal of the Islamic State. However, it’s a tough argument for the West to make without exposing itself to charges of hypocrisy. After all, it’s debatable to what extent Christianity has confronted the violence of its early years — much of it, of course, directed against Muslims. (The Crusades were a genocidal horror show.)
Thus, perhaps even more critical than Islam renouncing its bloody early years is Christianity’s leaders confronting its own, beginning to issue apologies (or on a more widespread basis than it has), and urging Western leaders to follow suit. It may be unrealistic and even less so to expect the latter to apologize for invading Iraq, but that would be ideal. As for reparations, the United States can at least couch its aid and reconstruction to Iraq and Afghanistan in those terms.
If such measures were enacted, modern Islam might be more amenable to facing its violent origins. Of course, the effect on the Islamic State would be absolutely nil. But its appeal might be blunted to some extent for many of those now dreaming of migrating to Syria and joining forces with the Islamic State.