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”
Dave Roberts
The far left, and I am sure that is the left that is being taken to task here, have a lot to answer for. They said that the west had it coming over 7/11 and 7/7. They described the Taliban and the various terrorist groups in Iraq as ” insurgents” and the ” resistance”, they supported and nurtured the whole Respect fiasco which led directly to the shambles of Tower Hamlets today. The list goes on and on.
Dave Roberts
Which means what?
Dave Roberts
Actually America is becoming more Christian as the expanding Latino population is Catholic, or don’t we count as Christians?
EvaL101
Jack let me explain these verses to you, but first let me tell you something about Arabic. Arabic is an especially poetic language, having a specific meaning for every single word. Even to native Arabic speakers, the Quran has the most profound and poetical style that makes interpretations understandable in reason.
Now 8:12 is easily able to dismiss as evidence for called upon terrorism; This verse is referring to a battle that already happened, the battle of Badr, not telling Muslims to ACTUALLY do these things in this day and age. “The unbelievers” are those who rejected the prophet and his message and brutally harrassed Muslims, therefore Allah allowed them to defend themselves in this battle.
Quran 4:34 – This verse has obviously been mistranslated because those words aren’t the right words. “Men have authority over women…the one superior to the other” – No that is supposed to say “Men are in charge of (protection) women because God has made the one STRONGER (scientifically proven fact) to the other” and the “beat them” part? Absurd. The correct tense in this Arabic form is basically “leave them”, or “drop it”, as the original word idribuhunna, is derived from daraba which does mean ” to hit”, but as many words in Arabic, the derivative isn’t necessarily the same as new word.
Quran 5:33 – This one is a little tricky if you don’t read all of the Quran. This verse is actually in the past tense form, and is not in the command form nor the future tense ( I will, etc.) by Allah, which is in turn a statement of irony when referred to what the Pharaoh said to the believers in Egypt at the time of Prophet Moses (‘Have you become believers before I have given you permission? This is surely some scheme which you have schemed in the city to drive its people out; you will reveal what you know – “…’I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides, then I will crucify you all’. – Quran 7:123/124) It is like addressing those that inflict pain on innocent others (as unbelievers of that did to the believers at that time), that they deserve the pain they intended/ caused.
GregAbdul
this is not a battle of know nothing opinions. Hispancs are actually leaving the Catholic Church. I am not going to sit here arguing and I don’t have time to spoon feed you facts. Islam is expanding in the US. It has been for the last 20 years easily. I only ask you accept what is going on around you and drop the denial.