By denouncing ISIS as ‘not Muslims’, moderate Muslims risk making things worse

When moderate Muslim groups use takfirism to tackle extremism, this intolerant doctrine is not challenged but reaffirmed.

When moderate Muslim groups use takfirism to tackle extremism, this intolerant doctrine is not challenged but reaffirmed

The last few weeks have seen a slew of Muslim condemnations of the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

In the US, the Council for American-Islamic Relations called ISIS ‘un-Islamic and morally repugnant’. Arsalan Iftikhar, a well-known American Muslim writer, meanwhile wrote that ISIS should be called the ‘Un-Islamic State’. The Organisation of Islamic Conference has said that the ISIS’s killing of US journalist James Foley has ‘nothing to do with Islam’, while the Muslim Council of Britain has called ISIS ‘un-Islamic to the core’.

These are strong words and these condemnations are both welcome and well-intentioned. However, many such denunciations also deeply problematic.

Just as non-Muslims who try to tackle Islamism through defining moderate interpretations of Islam as the sole ‘true Islam’ actually undermine liberal Muslim attempts to develop a pluralist understanding of religion, so moderate Muslims’ use of takfir – the process of denouncing rival Muslims as apostates or non-Muslims – reinforces the ideological underpinnings of the very movements they are seeking to tackle.

Takfirism is the root and enabler of all modern jihadism; takfirist doctrine enables any ‘true’ Muslim to label those with a rival interpretation of Islam as no longer Muslim.

This, combined with traditional Islamic jurisprudence that mandates death for apostates, is taken by jihadists as an open license to denounce and then kill their enemies.

When moderate Muslim groups use takfirism to tackle extremism, this dangerous and intrinsically intolerant doctrine is therefore not challenged but is instead reaffirmed. Illustrating this, one British fighter in Syria, explaining why he regarded the MCB as his enemies, said: ‘The Muslim Council of Britain, they are apostates, they are not Muslims”, ironically the same argument that the MCB itself makes against ISIS.

A better approach is to accept that Islamist extremists, however distasteful their view of Islam, remain Muslims, however much other Muslims, and non-Muslims, might dislike their version of Islam.

Traditionally, as long as a Muslim accepted the existence of a single God and that Mohammed was his final prophet, then he/she was a Muslim. Ironically, a return to this age-old ‘big tent’ approach – that both jihadists and ‘moderates’ are now trying to hastily jettison – is arguably a better way to tackle extremism than seeking to ‘takfir the takfiris’.

It also goes without saying that in modern multi-cultural societies no respectable Muslim should be using ‘non-Muslim’ as a term of abuse against theological rivals; among other things this also perpetuates the stigmas against apostates (i.e. those Muslims who exercise their right to freedom of conscience by leaving Islam).

A further problem with the ‘jihadists are not Muslims’ argument is that when mainstream Muslims deny that extremists are also Muslims, extremist arguments are not engaged with but are instead left to fester.

Take, for example, militants’ fondness for beheading captives; jihadists typically justify this practice through referencing the Quranic verse 47:4 ‘when you meet those who disbelieve, strike at their necks’ (and variants of this, according to different translations), often supported by many centuries of warlike, and literally medieval, interpretations.

Rather than seeking to effectively re-contextualise and de-fang this verse for the modern era, a blunt rejection of those who cite it as non-Muslims removes all scope for critically engaging – and dismantling – their arguments. This ostrich approach that extremists’ actions ‘have nothing to do with Islam’ not only fails to recognise how deep-rooted some hardline jihadist interpretations are, but it also effectively cedes such key theological battlefields to the extremists.

The cumulative effect of the above is damaging inaction; if ISIS and other extremists are not Muslims, then why should Muslims be involved in challenging them and their arguments? The Muslim Council of Britain’s recent statement that ISIS ‘has been repudiated by all Muslims’ is a case in point; if all Muslims have rejected the group then there is nothing for more moderate Muslims to do.

Equally counter-productive is the Muslim Association of Britain’s recent press-release which condemns ISIS but also suggests the group are not only not Muslim but are part of an (undefined) plot to damage Islam: ‘The group is purposely doing severe damage to the reputation of Muslims across the world and is attempting to defame the image of Islam.’

It is useful to consider how effective anti-racism campaigns would be if they had followed the same tactics (‘Nick Griffin? We really don’t consider him to be English because he’s adopted many foreign practices. The BNP? Oh, they’re part of an insidious plot by foreigners to damage Britain.’).

On the contrary, effective counter-racism work has always involved identifying, countering, modifying or openly rejecting a range of traditional cultural practices, narratives and ideas; counter-radicalisation work in Muslim communities should be no different.

Accepting that Islamist extremists are also Muslims, and that aspects of their ideology are deeply entrenched in Islamic tradition, is an essential first step.

James Brandon is an associate fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR). He was formerly the director of research at Quilliam, the counter-extremism think tank

110 Responses to “By denouncing ISIS as ‘not Muslims’, moderate Muslims risk making things worse”

  1. Gary Scott

    Muslims in Britain are condemned for not speaking out. Muslims in Britain are condemned for speaking out in the wrong way. A young Muslim girl left school, went to Syria, got married to some entirely unsavoury chap and started Tweeting idiotic stuff about ‘jihad’. So, a year later it suddenly became newsworthy for some strange reason and her heartbroken parents were dragged out to publicly condemn her. Does anyone remember ‘The Troubles?’. Back then there really WERE bombings in mainland UK. Many more died in The Troubles in any 6 month period than in these ‘jihadist’ actions. Did we ask Irish people living on the mainland to publicly condemn their countrymen? Did we ask Protestants/Catholics to condemn others of their sect? Did we put the “public-house republicans” forward as being terrorists or gob-shites? Why are the Muslims so different? Much less has happened but we are much more worried about it.

  2. GregAbdul

    Gary it is so refreshing to see a white not Muslim guy out front and not being prejudiced against Muslims….thank you.

  3. GregAbdul

    Tiger first off, once you write “Koran”….you show you don’t know squat about our faith. Use Isalmicfinder.org and visit a mosque and talk to us. We actually study this and that’s the conversation you need instead of pretending to be the one to tell us what we need to talk about.

  4. Mark

    Quite possibly because it’s recognised as an international problem, infecting many countries.

  5. Dave Roberts

    Actually people of Irish descent in this were country were asked to condemn the terrorists and many did so, you either have selective or defective memory or weren’t around during the seventies when the violence was worst. The history of the north is that of community and religious leaders condemning the violence from both sides.

    ISIS and other similar groups are totally different to the IRA and the Basque ETA in that those groups had objectives which were to a greater or lesser extent rooted in some form of discrimination. In the Basque country in all forms of discriminatory laws which stretched back to Francoism and in the Six Counties the denial of basic civil rights in a situation that was a direct reflection of the southern states of America.

    ISIS can be compared to European groups such as Bader Meinof and Brigada Rossa in Italy and and to a certain extent the revolutionary/criminal gangs in South America in that there is no compromise. With ISIS it is conversion or death. The answer is continuous bombing and arming of local anti ISIS groups particularly the Kurds in the short term. In the long term? I don’t know and neither does anyone else. The answer of course is western style democracy but that doesn’t have much of a history in those regions.

Comments are closed.