 |
| The Bridge Builder |
But then a couple of weeks ago I was emailed by the Director of the National Guard Bureau, (Chaplain Department) in Washington DC. He said he had heard I had a background in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies and wanted to know what I thought of the recent article published in The Atlantic, "What ISIS Really Wants" by journalist Graeme Wood. Here is a link to his article: ttp://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ . (Be advised, this article is not a quick read!)
Here is my review / response:
Thoughts on “What ISIS Really Wants” by journalist Graeme Wood, dated March 2015 in the Atlantic Quarterly.
By Laura Adelia 2
MARCH 2015
The article What ISIS
Really Wants, is a very lengthy and densely packed article written by journalist Graeme
Wood. Wood is also a lecturer of Political Sciences
at Yale. He is not Muslim, nor is he an
Islamic scholar or a professor of Religious Studies. Thus, we need to keep in mind he is writing from the perspective of political science, not religious studies.
When I taught “Intro to Islam”, as well as all the other
Religious Studies courses that I have taught at the college level for 13 years,
I took a cultural studies / anthropological / historical approach to
teaching Religious Studies. As an
educator I tried to stay impartial. I
tried to get the students thinking and to understand that there are many perspectives
and points of view. There is no one
“Islam”, there are many versions of Islam, just as there are many versions of
Christianity, and so on.
The article What ISIS
Really Wants may be informative, but impartial, NO. He gives a lot of information about ISIS / ISIL / DAESH, but leaves out essential background information about the history of Islam and how ISIS was "created" and developed in the past few years.
Wood equates ISIS with the religion of Islam. In doing so, he gives a very partial and slanted view of a very complex topic.
Wood equates ISIS with the religion of Islam. In doing so, he gives a very partial and slanted view of a very complex topic.
Wood asks, ‘Who is ISIS?’
(AKA The Islamic State)? ‘Where
did ISIS come from?’ and ‘What are its intentions?’
In answering his first question, Graeme Wood defines ISIS as
a religious group. And not only this but that "ISIS is Islamic, very Islamic." In this he acknowledges
and counters President Obama’s reference to ISIS as being “not Islamic”.
It is interesting that Woods takes this stand, a non Muslim
and Westerner. He must have known this
would seem rather offensive to many mainstream Muslims, (equating this violent
hate group with their religion). It
would certainly seem like a comment that would get a lot of people “grumbling”
and talking about his article
If that was his intention, well then he certainly achieved
it. For this article has been all the
talk and as I understand, there have been many responses and rebuttals. It has offended and has ruffled many feathers. For those that agree with Woods, it seems to get people amped up for going to war.
If I were teaching a class on Islam right now, I might hold a
class discussion and ask the students something like, “Is ISIS a religious group? Is ISIS Islamic? Or is it a terrorist group? Or what? What do
you think?” This is what a professor of Religious Studies does (facilitate learning).
Woods article on the other hand appears to give a lot of information to help educate people about ISIS, but it does not facilitate learning. Or is it call to arms disguised as an informational article?
Woods article on the other hand appears to give a lot of information to help educate people about ISIS, but it does not facilitate learning. Or is it call to arms disguised as an informational article?
So, what do I think about ISIS?
ISIS much fits
in the definition and category of terrorism, not a religion. Terrorism defined as violent acts (or threat of violent acts) intended to
create fear / terror perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological
goals).
Islam, on the other hand, is a world religion, specifically the second largest religion in the world. And like other large world religions, there are numerous denominations, sects and branches, as well as cultural and geographical variations. Islam is diverse, huge, multiethnic and has many versions. There is no one Islam!
Islam, on the other hand, is a world religion, specifically the second largest religion in the world. And like other large world religions, there are numerous denominations, sects and branches, as well as cultural and geographical variations. Islam is diverse, huge, multiethnic and has many versions. There is no one Islam!
Of course, everyone is going to have their own opinion
on this, (ISIS is Islam, or ISIS is a terrorist organization). There is no winning this
argument. For most people, the decision to agree or disagree is
based not on logic or reasoning but emotion.
As noted above, although it certainly seems Wood put much time and work into this article, he leaves out much
vital background information on various Islamic terms and concepts which are
many times very misunderstood by the general public.
So, let’s take a look at some of the Arabic / Islamic terms and
concepts Wood speaks about in his article and compare these terms and concepts from those of a Religious Studies perspective; Jihad, Islam, Caliphate, Violence in Islam (the Sword Verse), The Qur'an, the Arabic language, Infidels, People of the Book, Islam's official teaching on conversion, Dhimmi (protected) status of religious minorities in Islam, Jizya & zakat (taxes) in Islam, teaching on crucifixion in Islam:
JIHAD
First, Wood mentions “jihadism”. He equates jihadism with “holy war” and al Qaeda and does not offer any
further explanation or history about this term.
Actually, the term jihad جهاد is Arabic for “struggle”. However,
the popular understanding for this term is “holy war” or extremist violence and
religiously justified war / killing of “infidels”. And this is not quite correct.
In Islam there is the ‘greater jihad’, meaning the
inner spiritual struggle, such as wrestling with God, spiritual struggles that
we all go through in order to spiritually grow.
And then there is also the ‘lesser jihad’, meaning an outer or
physical struggle, against the enemies of Islam. It is this understanding of jihad that has morphed since the time of
the Crusades into a military meaning & the popular understanding of jihad as “holy war”.
Jihad in Arabic is
three consonants, ج-ه-د ‘j h d’
are the English equivalents, (actually d-h-j as Arabic reads from right to
left). These three consonants form the
roots of many other terms with similar meanings. One example is ijtihad , the Arabic term for intellectual wrestling / struggling /
reasoning, such as when one is trying to understand something, study and learn. Wrestling
with the text, so to speak.
ISLAM
Getting back to the article, Wood never mentions just how
large and diverse the religion of Islam really is. It is the second largest religion in the
world with many branches and hundreds of sects.
As we know, it spans the globe and has many different cultural
influences. All this, not mention the
numerous theologies, philosophies, practices, beliefs, influences, schools of
thought, etc. within Islam.
Of course, all this is not easily explained, it is very complex
and takes time to study and learn. There
is no simple explanation. It can’t be
covered in one article, even one as lengthy as this article. Perhaps it would have been responsible of
Wood to point this out.
CALIPHATE
Next, Wood talks about the caliphate, and how ISIS
views itself to be proclaiming itself as the new caliphate. Caliph (khalifa) is Arabic for “successor”.
Interestingly, going back to the Prophet Muhammad, it is
well known that before he died in 632 AD he did not name a successor. The person that became the next leader after
Muhammad’s passing was Abu Bakr, who was chosen by the early Muslim community. Thus began the Caliphate, and the many
caliphs and dynasties over the centuries as Islam spread through the Middle
East, Central Asia, North Africa and Spain.
Caliphs were elected.
It is noted that the fourth Caliph, Ali is thought of as the
proper successor to Muhammad by Shia Islam.
Ali by the way, was related to Muhammad. Also, throughout Islamic history, there were
at times multiple caliphates and different lines of caliphates serving at the
same time (Africa, Spain). There were a series of dynasties over the
centuries, (Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid, Almohad, Ottoman, etc.) and the
caliphate came to end after WWI, at the end of the Ottoman empire. Turkish President Kemal Ataturk in his
reforms abolished the Caliphate in 1924.
And thus ended the Caliphate. Since then, there have been various movements
to re-establish the caliphate. It was
about this time that Islamist organization the Muslim Brotherhood was
formed in Egypt. From them, breakaway
groups emerged, and each one somewhat more political and conservative than the
next. Sayyid Qutb was one of the
leaders, and his writings have been influential to many extremist groups.
And then, there have been countless debates on whether Islam
is really a religion of violence, or peace.
Is Islam a violent religion?
Does it teach killing of infidels / nonbelievers?
Again, like Christianity and other religions, there are many
interpretations, many versions of not only the Qur’an, but also the Hadith,
(vast and multi-voluminous later writings) and the Sunnah (another later writing that gives more teachings on the Prophet Muhammad and is serves as a guide for Muslims on how to live).
As the decades and centuries passed in
Islamic history and the religion spread, thus later came various forms of Sharia (Islamic religious law) and
jurisprudence. There is no one Sharia law. There are many variations.
As in Christian fundamentalism, which takes a very literal
& exclusivistic interpretation of the Bible, Islamic
fundamentalism (AKA: Islamist, Political Islam, Radical Islam), also adheres
to a very narrow and literalistic, exclusivistic interpretation of the Qur’an, with an
emphasis on the strictest form of Islamic jurisprudence / Sharia law.
THE SWORD VERSE
To better understand this, let’s take a look at the infamous “Sword Verse” in the Qur’an (Q. 9:5), which has been interpreted by extremists as
a call to Muslims to “to fight and slay the pagans / idolaters / infidels wherever you
find them”. In other words, this verse is & has been interpreted as a call to violence and a justification of violence and killing non
Muslims.
The key thing to keep in mind here is interpretation, and extremists, terrorists, Islamists. Not all Muslims interpret this verse as a call to violence.
Many of the extremist / terrorist groups leave out
the whole verse, and they are selective in which
interpretation of the Qur’an they use. The whole verse of the Qur'an 9:5 is noted in the three translated examples, below:
Sahih International:
And
when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find
them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place
of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let
them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Pickthall:
Then,
when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them,
and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.
But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their
way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Yusuf Ali:
But
when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye
find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every
stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and
practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is
Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. http://quran.com/9
THE QUR'AN & CLASSICAL ARABIC
Although Muslims generally believe the only authentic
version of the Qur’an is Arabic, and all translations into other languages are
really interpretations, it is helpful to keep in mind that the Arabic the
Qur’an was written in 7th - 8th century AD in what is now called “Classical
Arabic”. It is very ancient Arabic and
difficult to read and understand, even for modern native Arabic speakers. Keep in mind there are 5 major dialects of
modern Arabic currently spoken throughout the Arabic world, which are all quite
different than Modern Standard Arabic (formal Arabic) and Classical Arabic.
Many of the verses in the Qur'an have a poetic
quality when spoken in the Classical Arabic.
Many of the verses rhyme and have a rhythm, this is why it is usually
recited or chanted. In fact, this is
what the term Qur’an actually means,
the “recitation”. When translated to
other languages, it loses this rhyming poetic quality and does not translate well
into English. This is why as an English speaker, reading
the Qur’an translated into English still can be so very difficult to
understand.
It is also helpful to know that the Qur’an is not written or organized in narrative form or
in chronological order. The first
revelations that Muhammad had are actually toward the rear of the Qur’an. Note they are quite short. The longer chapters (called a surah
in Arabic) are towards the first part of the Qur'an. These were
revelations Muhammad received later, when the early Muslim community
moved to the city of Medina.
Prophet Muhammad, by the way was illiterate. He told his revelations to his companions,
which were memorized and or written on anything they could find, including
bone. His revelations lasted 23
years. Later, these writings were put together and became the
Qur’an.
As
for the infamous Sword Verse, this surah was revealed
to Muhammad when they (the early Muslim community) were under attack in Medina
by the Quraysh tribe.
So, the interpretation held by many
Islamic scholars, the "Sword Verse" is not a call to kill the infidels, but rather to self-defense when under attack.
Thus it is important to know the historical & cultural background
of the Quranic verses, stories & teachings.
INFIDELS & PEOPLE OF THE BOOK
Notice the term
infidel (kafir in Arabic). And the
terms “pagans”, “unbelievers” / “idolaters” /
“polytheists”.
Early Islam did not necessarily view all non Muslims as infidels / idolaters, etc. Christians
and Jews were known as “the People of the Book”,
meaning the Bible. Jews and Christians
were not considered unbelievers or pagans or infidels as they believed in God.
So who were the pagans and idolaters? Basically they were the polytheistic Arabic
tribes, which populated the Arabian Peninsula.
And any other polytheistic religion.
"LET THERE BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION"
One important and very overlooked Quranic verse, especially
by extremist / terrorist / Islamist groups is Surah / chapter 2, verse 256,
which states “Let there be no compulsion in religion”. http://quran.com/2/256 This verse is saying that Islam cannot and
should not be forced upon anyone. No
forced conversions.
For mainstream Islam, acts of violence, suicide bombers,
terrorism, etc. are not at all of Islam.
And these things are not “taught” in the Qur’an.
COTTON CANDY VIEW...
Yet Graeme Wood states that Muslims who call ISIS un-Islamic
as having “a politically correct and cotton candy view of their own religion”. (Wood is quoting a Bernard Haykel a Princeton
scholar) who further says this comes from the “Interfaith Christian nonsense
tradition”.
Basically Wood and Heykel have pretty much just totally disrespected
the vast majority of Muslims, who are “mainstream” and peaceful… and many Christians,
for that matter.
TAXES, JIZYA & DHIMMI STATUS
Moving along, the article talks about the term jizya,
which is a form of tax or tribute paid by non-Muslims who live in Muslim ruled lands or geographic regions. Yes this was practiced. But Wood’s article fails to mention or explain dhimmi status,
which refers to non-Muslims who lived in Muslim lands. The word dhimmi means “protected person”,
(as non-Muslims were exempt from military service).
Another thing Wood’s article
fails to mention that Muslims also paid / pay a tax, called zakat (a religious tax used for charitable
purposes). So, for non-Muslims, they
paid their tax, (jizya), and Muslims pay zakat. Dhimmis, as long as they paid their taxes (jizya) were allowed to practice their
faith whether it be Christian or Jewish and to live with autonomy in Muslim ruled lands.
Jizya by the way, was only applied to adult
males. Women, children, monks, hermits,
the poor, the sick and the old were exempt from jizya.
CRUCIFIXION
Next Wood talks about crucifixion. He states that crucifixion was “one of the only punishments permitted for enemies
of Islam”. This is incorrect.
Crucifixion was done as a form of execution for crimes such as those who robbed
and then murdered the victim. Crucifixion is
still legal in some Islamic countries, such as Iran, as well as many other
countries, Islamic and non Islamic.
However unlike what Wood states, crucifixion is not the "only" form of punishment.
Note the Quranic verse (Q5:33) actually says about crucifixion:
“Indeed, the penalty
for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth
[to cause] 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.” http://quran.com/5/33 .
Also note that the next verse in the Qur’an (Q 5:34) says
this:
“Except for those who
return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving
and Merciful.”
So much for crucifixion being the only punishment!
I could go on, but will stop here.
Suffice it to say, Graeme Wood’s article may be informative, but it is very slanted and gives a very partial picture of a much larger and very complex topic.
 | |
| A rabbi, an imam, and a priest having Interfaith dialogue at ASU |
One may ask, why would a chaplain / Episcopal priest be interested in Islam, Arabic, and Middle Eastern history and culture?
Bridge Builder comes to mind. It is also a poem.
The bridge builder metaphor has been a major aspect of my ministry as a chaplain and as a college teacher over the years.
Is this a "politically correct & cotton candy view" as Professor Heykel stated in Wood's article?
I guess it is a matter of opinion. Again, no winning this argument. But I sure would rather live in a world where people are learning, dialoguing, teachings and growing, rather than in fear. Of course we know there will always be people and groups of people that are very violent and do heinous things in the name of their ideology. There will always be ignorance, fear, hate and violence, unfortunately. There will always be the extremists, every religion has had them. Islam is not the only one.
The bridge builder metaphor has been a major aspect of my ministry as a chaplain and as a college teacher over the years.
Is this a "politically correct & cotton candy view" as Professor Heykel stated in Wood's article?
I guess it is a matter of opinion. Again, no winning this argument. But I sure would rather live in a world where people are learning, dialoguing, teachings and growing, rather than in fear. Of course we know there will always be people and groups of people that are very violent and do heinous things in the name of their ideology. There will always be ignorance, fear, hate and violence, unfortunately. There will always be the extremists, every religion has had them. Islam is not the only one.
One can be a wall builder or a bridge builder.
Need I say more?
- LA
