ISIS and the Challenge of Interpreting Islam

Abstract

The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) organized an “ISIS andthe Challenge of Interpreting Islam: Text, Context, and Islam-in-Modernity”panel at the American Academy of Religion (AAR) Annual Meeting held onNovember 21, 2016, in San Antonio, TX. After the panel, it held a receptionand presented the al Faruqi Memorial lecture. The panel brought together seniorscholars of Islam, history, and cultural studies.Moderator Ermin Sinanović (director, Research and Academic Programs,IIIT) divided it into three rounds and allowed questions after each round. Eachround addressed an ISIS-related question: (1) “How should we best understandISIS? Is it a product of Islamic tradition or something inherently modern? Whatis ISIS an example for?”; (2) “What role does the Islamic tradition play in enabling,justifying, or delegitimizing ISIS?”; and (3) “Is ISIS Islamic?”The first speaker, Ovamir Anjum (Imam Khattab Endowed Chair of IslamicStudies, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, University ofToledo) reminded the audience of the commonality of violence for politicalends in history by arguing that this is not a uniquely Islamic phenomenon. Accordingto Islamic tradition, groups like ISIS that employ violence to kill Muslimsand non-Muslims are ghulāt (extremists), rebels, or khawārij. One mustunderstand ISIS within the Islamic tradition, because the group is using Islamicsymbols. But this does not mean that it is an Islamic phenomenon.In the second round, he contextualized the issue by stating that the numberof Syrians killed by Bashar al-Assad is seven times higher than those killedby ISIS. He remarked that “ISIS is horrifying for psychological reasons becausethey use the pornography of violence, for example, not because theyare a uniquely murderous threat. There are a lot of those in the world.” Anjumalso found its acts dangerous because its members justify their own biases inthe name of Islam. He restated that the group is khawārij, enslaves and killsnon-combatants, and rejects the authority of existent Islamic scholarship becausethe Islamic juristic tradition forbids killing non-combatants.Anjum responded to the final question by refusing to call ISIS “Islamic,”for “Of course ISIS is making Islamic claims, but Islamic tradition is verycomplex and has been very difficult to agree on things except for a very, veryfew fundamentals throughout Islamic history.” He also argued that “those whoexcommunicate Muslims en masse and kill for that reason are khawārij, andthey must be fought. This is agreed upon by both Sunni and Shi‘a scholars.” ...