Recently British PM David Cameron called on the BBC not to use the phrase 'Islamic State' when referring to the group operating in Iraq and Syria. Like many other non-Muslims, the PM views the actions of ISIS as not being representative of the True Islam which is the religion of peace.
To me, this view presents a logical puzzle. I can well understand how a Muslim who believes in divine origins of his religion may think that it has one and only one correct interpretation. Thus, for instance, the belief of the Shia Muslims that the Sunni interpretation of Islam is wrong is at least logically consistent. But how can a non-Muslim reasonably conclude that some interpretations of Islam are correct while others are not?
Obviously, some interpretations may sound a lot nicer to the Western ear than others. Some interpretations may be more mainstream (though these might still significantly differ from Cameron’s interpretation). But unless one believes that Islam (or any other religion for that matter) is indeed directly based on divine revelations, can one logically call any interpretations of it “untrue”?
Would you like to read similar articles in the future?
Speaking as an outsider, there can be no "true' or "false" in any religion. Everyone is free to pursue whatever interpretation of whatever religion they choose, and no one has the monopoly on the "true" version of the religion, or on the decisions of who to call a "true" Muslim/Jew/Christian etc. This is of course especially so if you don't belong to the said religion.
I think such statements are not meant to be taken as literal statements about religious doctrines, but rather as saying that the version of Islam practiced by the vast majority of Muslims is not violent. It is a bizarre choice of words when a non-Muslim states that something is or isn't "true Islam", or some people are or aren't "true Muslims", but I doubt they are meant to be interpreted literally. Most likely they choose this as the most straightforward way to convey their (more nuanced) message.
I'll be somewhat less charitable. "It isn't true Islam" is an applause light. It doesn't actually convey any content about what is true Islam and isn't meant to; it's something that you say to prevent your statements about Islamic terror to be interpreted as "boo Islam".
I don't, in fact, think that the people who say this would stop saying it if it was found that 51% of Islam is violent. It's not a statement about which faction has the majority, but about which faction they like.
I think saying "to me this is not true Islam, and a person doing x is not a true muslim, because these don't concur with the way I interpret the religion" makes sense, even if you don't believe in the religion. But of course no one gets to decide what is or isn't true Islam or any other religion. This was surely some sort of political trick with political goals.
1) What do most Muslims believe? It makes a lot of sense to call those believes "true Islam" and not call beliefs hold by a small subject of Muslims "true Islam".
2) There a war of propaganda. Daesh/ISIS profits from being called the "Islamic state". It makes it easier for Daesh to recruit. Calling it that way is helping the terrorists in the war of ideas.
The West does profit in the war of ideas from labeling moderate Muslims as "true Islam".
The fight against Daesh won't be won on the battlefield but in the hearts and minds. As a result the war of ideas is very important.
What do most Muslims believe?It makes a lot of sense to call those believes "true Islam" and not call beliefs hold by a small subject of Muslims "true Islam".
Wouldn’t it be better to call this the “mainstream Islam”? Otherwise Shia’s religion is no longer “true” Islam, Lutheranism is no longer “true” Christianity etc. Also, the meanings of “true” Islam and Christianity would continuously change over time.
There is a war of propaganda… The West does profit in the war of ideas from labeling moderate Muslims as "true Islam".
It is reasonable that in a war of propaganda sticking to the truth is not a top priority. But on whom exactly the Western propaganda is working? Most ISIS recruits do not watch the BBC. It is the western public who will be misled by the incorrect labelling.
The fight against Daesh won't be won on the battlefield but in the hearts and minds.
I don't think I can recall previous cases where aggressors were defeated not on the battlefield but in the hearts and minds. Can you give me an example?
Also, the meanings of “true” Islam and Christianity would continuously change over time.
Why is that a problem?
What do you want to achieve by distinguishing "true Muslims" from "false Muslims", other than motivating people you label "false Muslims" but who want to be "true Muslims" to follow the criteria you lay out for "true Muslims"?
I don't think I can recall previous cases where aggressors were defeated not on the battlefield but in the hearts and minds.
Why doesn't the IRA bomb British targets anymore?
It has nothing to do with British military victories but a lot to do with winning hearts and minds.
It's no coincidence that this is said by the British premier and not a Swedish one.
The British intelligence community is the strongest in regard of being conscious about language use.
The only way to win against against guerilla warfare is to make the guerrilla ... read more
Also, the meanings of “true” Islam and Christianity would continuously change over time.
Why is that a problem?
What do you want to achieve by distinguishing "true Muslims" from "false Muslims", other than motivating people you label "false Muslims" but who want to be "true Muslims" to follow the criteria you lay out for "true Muslims"?
I don't think I can recall previous cases where aggressors were defeated not on the battlefield but in the hearts and minds.
Why doesn't the IRA bomb British targets anymore?
It has nothing to do with British military victories but a lot to do with winning hearts and minds.
It's no coincidence that this is said by the British premier and not a Swedish one.
The British intelligence community is the strongest in regard of being conscious about language use.
The only way to win against against guerilla warfare is to make the guerrilla groups lose local support. The years the US spend in Iraq didn't allow it to destroy the predecessor of Daesh because they didn't win the population's hearts and minds.
The Soviet Union didn't fall by the sword. India didn't gain independence by the sword.
It is the western public who will be misled by the incorrect labelling.
For practical purposes the Western public has to understand what being a Muslim means for those Muslims who live in the West. It doesn't help at all to focus on radicals if you want to understand the Muslim next door and integrate him.
There nothing misleading at all about calling ISIS Daesh. It just a decision to disallow Daesh to spread it's propaganda that not dissimilar to Twitter blocking Daesh's accounts.
There are statements a non-Muslim can make about what is and isn't 'True Islam', in that certain beliefs can be categorically described as things like:
* not supported by scripture ('the Prophet had pink hair')
* contrary to scripture ('the Prophet was a dog person and disliked cats')
* considered heretical by the vast majority of believers ('actually, there are two Gods')
* a minority view that is not representative of the religion as a whole (the views of IS)
I mean basically, if anybody gets to determine preferred usage of 'Islam' it is those who claim the label. If, as is the case with Cameron, all but a statistically negligible minority of those who fall under 'Islam' in his country say "we would prefer that IS are denied the label 'Islamic'", then sure, why not?
I do believe, btw, that this statement was in response to request from Islamic community leaders and not just Cameron language policing of his own accord.
all but a statistically negligible minority of those who fall under 'Islam' in his country say "we would prefer that IS are denied the label 'Islamic'"
To me, this view presents a logical puzzle. I can well understand how a Muslim who believes in divine origins of his religion may think that it has one and only one correct interpretation. Thus, for instance, the belief of the Shia Muslims that the Sunni interpretation of Islam is wrong is at least logically consistent. But how can a non-Muslim reasonably conclude that some interpretations of Islam are correct while others are not?
Do you also have trouble figuring out the "true meaning" of the sentence "The earth is flat"?
How is this related? "The earth is flat" is a sentence that only has 1 interpretation. Do you mean an that we should just take a completely literal reading of everything that's in the Koran, and this and only this can be called "true Islam"? In this case we'll probably reach a conclusion that there is no such thing as a "true Muslim".
"The earth is flat" is a sentence that only has 1 interpretation.
That's because there hasn't been a movement that has motivation to reconcile professing to believe the truth of the sentence "The earth is flat", with believing that it isn't.
Do you mean an that we should just take a completely literal reading of everything that's in the Koran, and this and only this can be called "true Islam"?
Something like that, with possibly the Hadith. Basically take the Koran the way it was meant to be interpreted.
In this case we'll probably reach a conclusion that there is no such thing as a "true Muslim".
I'm not sure about that, granted I haven't read the Koran, but I'm guessing you haven't either. In any case, it should certainly be possible to figure out who is more or less a true Muslim. ... read more
"The earth is flat" is a sentence that only has 1 interpretation.
That's because there hasn't been a movement that has motivation to reconcile professing to believe the truth of the sentence "The earth is flat", with believing that it isn't.
Do you mean an that we should just take a completely literal reading of everything that's in the Koran, and this and only this can be called "true Islam"?
Something like that, with possibly the Hadith. Basically take the Koran the way it was meant to be interpreted.
In this case we'll probably reach a conclusion that there is no such thing as a "true Muslim".
I'm not sure about that, granted I haven't read the Koran, but I'm guessing you haven't either. In any case, it should certainly be possible to figure out who is more or less a true Muslim.
Encountered in meme context I stumbled upon a video that started with a flag with a cross on it with "Christian state of Jerusalem" or something to that effect. It followed with a building being attacked with an explosive with the voices of multiple people saying "ave maria" as if in support of the actions. It is much more easier to say that is not a good representation of a christianistic stance on what to do. Religious militants are like that and it is much more about being militant than being religious.
If you are a christian militant you tend to be called out for militantism. If you are a muslim militant you are much more likely to be called out on being religious. This refers back on the issue about using minimal feasible stereotyping. We are much more familiar how a christian ideology impacts a persons behaviour, thus we are very comptent in calling out the troublesome types from the harmless ones. However christians are much less familiar with muslims. We tend not be able to subdivide them into meaningful categories. One doesn't significantly change their mind about rightists being violent for the existence of Breivik. The difference between right extremist and right is easier to understand than muslim extremists and muslims.
The deal with ISIS is much like Holy Roman Empire. It was neither holy, roman or empire. You don't need to know what the real flag looks like to know that it's a false flag operation.
christians are much less familiar with muslims. We tend not be able to subdivide them into meaningful categories.
If you feel that you are not sufficiently familiar with Muslims, how can you be confident that you can distinguish the “real” Muslims from the “false flag” ones?
More generally, how can you decide which interpretation of religion that is not yours (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.) is the “real” one?
If you divide christians into lutherians and catholics if lutherians are found somehow to be bad the issue of whether christians are bad because lutherians are bad doesn't that much rise up or it is moot. You don't need to decide whether lutherians represent christians because you can sort things out without the umbrella term "christians". For example the conflict in Ireland it is prety hard to tell which one is the "real christian faith". We are content with not identifying one or can understand christianity as encompassing both mutually contradictory systems (and even understand that one of the component facets protestantism has its own mutually contradictory facets). Somehow it is harder to concieve that islam might have similar structure.
Like most christians are not lutherans, designating that work-for-its-own-sake (as contrast to reward or result) is a property of the ... read more If you divide christians into lutherians and catholics if lutherians are found somehow to be bad the issue of whether christians are bad because lutherians are bad doesn't that much rise up or it is moot. You don't need to decide whether lutherians represent christians because you can sort things out without the umbrella term "christians". For example the conflict in Ireland it is prety hard to tell which one is the "real christian faith". We are content with not identifying one or can understand christianity as encompassing both mutually contradictory systems (and even understand that one of the component facets protestantism has its own mutually contradictory facets). Somehow it is harder to concieve that islam might have similar structure.
Like most christians are not lutherans, designating that work-for-its-own-sake (as contrast to reward or result) is a property of the subdivision and not the general class we can expect non-lutheran christians to not exhibit it even if we lack any positive description of what the other subdivisions are like. That is when we say that work-for-its-own-sake might make people do needless busy work and feel good about it, we might want to emphasise that when we are saying these people do a bad thing that we criticise the subgroup and not christianity as a whole (ie christian workethic isn't automatically tainted by critisising lutheran work-ethic). Similarly when we critisise ISIS for things that uniquely the ISIS subgroup does we don't critisise them for being muslims. If you interpret resisting temptation as trying to kill people that do bad things that doesn't mean that resisting temptation is bad as such. But the details on what that means in practise do matter.
Martin Luther found that having a market of "buying your soul" a way into heaven was not properly connected to christian beliefs. Similarly beheading people for the slightest mistake is likely to be a disproportionate punishment in islamistic terms. Thus there is likely to be valid islamistic reasons to critisise ISIS. The question of the validity of the fundamentals doesn't even come up when the connection is at best shaky. There is a difference in the degree of the lenght of the argument chain. While religion might require to take some things on faith, it doesn't require to take everything on faith. That is if you try to use islam to back up some belief there are standards where you can fail to back the claim with it, ie islam has a meaning and you can fail to use its correct meaning. That is, it is possible to distinguish between orthodoxy and heterodoxy (atleast most of the time).
Based on your previous votes, our recommender system estimates the probability that you will find this post
interesting. The estimates become more accurate as you rate more posts.