'Islamic State' is a slur on our faith, say leading Muslims

[lego 44,165]

Imams call on David Cameron and others to stop using phrase which they say gives credibility to a terrorist organisation

The prime minister and media should stop legitimising the terror group rampaging through Syria and Iraq by describing it as Islamic State, according to a coalition of imams and organisations representing British Muslims. Use of the jihadis' preferred title, they argue, gives credibility to the Sunni militants and slurs the Islamic faith.

Signatories to a letter to David Cameron, including Sughra Ahmed, president of the Islamic Society of Britain, admit that UK Muslims need to do more to dissuade their young men from being misled into taking part in the group's "hatred and poison". "We shall take every opportunity to continue to say clearly and loudly 'not in our name' and 'not for our faith,' " they write.

The letter's authors also call for the prime minister to reassess his own language. Cameron, in common with other senior politicians, has repeatedly made reference to the Islamic State, including during a Commons debate this month.

Signatories including Mohammed Abbasi, from the Association of British Muslims, and Amjad Malik QC, president of the Association of Muslim Lawyers, write: "We do not believe the terror group responsible should be given the credence and standing they seek by styling themselves Islamic State. It is neither Islamic, nor is it a state.

"The group has no standing with faithful Muslims, nor among the international community of nations. It clearly will never accept the obligations that any legitimate state has, including the responsibility to protect citizens and uphold human rights.

"So we believe the media, civic society and governments should refuse to legitimise these ludicrous caliphate fantasies by accepting or propagating this name. We propose that 'UnIslamic State' (UIS) could be an accurate and fair alternative name to describe this group and its agenda – and we will begin to call it that."

The intervention marks an intensification of a campaign by prominent British Muslims to deter young men from seeking adventure with the militants. It follows a recent decision by Muslim leaders to issue a fatwa condemning British jihadis.

Six senior Islamic scholars endorsed the fatwa last month, describing Britons allied to Islamic State (Isis) cells as "heretics" and prohibiting would-be jihadis from joining the "oppressive and tyrannical" group in Iraq and Syria. It is feared that as many as 500 Britons have travelled to Syria or Iraq since 2011 to join the group and its affiliates.

In a letter seen by the Observer, the signatories add: "We believe that it would send a powerful message in Britain and around the world if you would join us, as our prime minister, in leading a national debate to seek a suitable alternative way to refer to this group and further challenge its legitimacy and influence.

"This could be especially powerful because everybody at home and abroad can see that you are being asked to do so by British Muslims themselves who want to be clear about why this group is so vehemently rejected.

"We are sure that most British Muslims would agree that 'UnIslamic State' is a considerably more fitting label for this poisonous group – and hope that our fellow citizens will join us in that.

"We know that this would be one small, symbolic step and that we must all work together to build the inclusion and integration in British society that would repel these poisonous ideas."

Dilwar Hussain from the New Horizons in British Islam charity, a group that works for reform in Muslim thought, and one of the 18 signatories of the letter to Cameron, said it was also important for British Muslims to be seen to be speaking out against the extremist views of men such as Anjem Choudary, who was interviewed by the Observer last week.

Choudary, a former lawyer linked to many Britons who have fought in Syria, and who acknowledges Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as "the caliph of all Muslims and the prince of the believers", claimed that Washington's foreign policy was to blame for the beheading of American journalist James Foley.

Hussain, formerly a commissioner at the Commission for Racial Equality, said: "The risk is that to an unsuspecting public we give the impression that his views actually carry some weight among most British Muslims.

"Choudhary organises rallies to which a handful of people turn up. His views have been roundly condemned by Muslim leaders, imams and citizens up and down the country.

"He says he would rather live there, in this so-called 'caliphate'. He's welcome to. But what we want to make very clear is that Muslims who like living here, in Britain, don't recognise his views, or those of Isis. That's not us and it's not our religion."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/13/term-islamic-state-slur-faith-david-cameron?CMP=twt_gu

[Bebe 17,289]

Ok, and the Christian crusaders weren't actually Christian either. They just happened to pray to the Christian god, slaughter those who didn't pray to that God and also slay other Christians that didn't adhere to their specific interpretation of the Christian religion.

 

I mean... I get why a non-extremist muslim would be disgusted by the actions of these jihadis, but they are jihadis.

There is no true Scotsman right?

[lego 44,165]

Ok, and the Christian crusaders weren't actually Christian either. They just happened to pray to the Christian god, slaughter those who didn't pray to that God and also slay other Christians that didn't adhere to their specific interpretation of the Christian religion.

 

I mean... I get why a non-extremist muslim would be disgusted by the actions of these jihadis, but they are jihadis.

There is no true Scotsman right?

What? People were complaining about muslim leaders not being vocal enough about extremism and this is your comment? They didn't say that they aren't Muslims, they are if they hold islamic belief, but their behaviour is unislamic and they shouldn't be reffered to as islamic state because they are not state and not islamic one. Last caliphate was the Ottoman one, these new ones pop up every few months and they are not legitimate.

Jihad means struggle against own self and can mean war against those who attack muslim country, but it has rules and regulations, something that these people don't follow cause many don't even speak arabic or study their religion.

[Bebe 17,289]

What? People were complaining about muslim leaders not being vocal enough about extremism and this is your comment? They didn't say that they aren't Muslims, they are if they hold islamic belief, but their behaviour is unislamic and they shouldn't be reffered to as islamic state because they are not state and not islamic one. Last caliphate was the Ottoman one, these new ones pop up every few months and they are not legitimate.

Jihad means struggle against own self and can mean war against those who attack muslim country, but it has rules and regulations, something that these people don't follow cause many don't even speak arabic or study their religion.

 

Muslim leaders have always been vocal about extremism. It's just that the media and most people don't pay much attention.

IS behaviour is "unislamic" according to this man, but this mans behaviour is "unislamic" according to IS. It's an interpretation of Islam whether they like it or not.

IS is clearly unpleasant and no reasonable person condones their actions regardless of faith. They are still an Islamic group, if not an Islamic state.

[Scarlet Witch 1,656]

Isn't that what they call themselves? What are we going to call them then? Piece of **** trash maggots rotten flesh scums?

[lego 44,165]

Muslim leaders have always been vocal about extremism. It's just that the media and most people don't pay much attention.

IS behaviour is "unislamic" according to this man, but this mans behaviour is "unislamic" according to IS. It's an interpretation of Islam whether they like it or not.

It's unislamic according to all major scholars in Islam and according to majority of muslims. "IS" doesn't have even any real scholars with them. They are mostly very young. Just few days ago I read in Daily Mail about two 16 year old twin girls who went to Syria from UK, then one 18 year old who was talking about beheading on twitter but she couldn't even spell right, both english and few terms in arabic, written all wrong. They are from the street, uneducated, I don't think they can 'interpret' anything.

Isn't that what they call themselves? What are we going to call them then? Piece of **** trash maggots rotten flesh scums?

Well even that is better. Why should people obey them and call them how they wish to be called? These imams suggested term "unIslamic state".

[Didymus 34,380]

It doesn't really matter. Faith is interpreted in all possible ways. There is no "Islam".

 

Which is why Europeans/Americans should ****ing stop expecting imams or whatever "representative" of Islam (of which there is none) to respond to IS like it needs to respond at all. Just stay with the facts and leave all philosophical wanderings around empty words for dumb people who don't know any better.

[Bebe 17,289]

It's unislamic according to all major scholars in Islam and according to majority of muslims. "IS" doesn't have even any real scholars with them. They are mostly very young. Just few days ago I read in Daily Mail about two 16 year old twin girls who went to Syria from UK, then one 18 year old who was talking a out beheading on twitter but she couldn't even spell right, both english and few terms in arabic, written all wrong. They are from the street, uneducated, I don't think they can 'interpret' anything.

 

It doesn't really matter whether their interpretation of the religion is right or wrong, that's not what we are discussing. There are thousands of sects of Christianity, all of which think they are correct and have the correct interpretation of their faith. Although these denominations are vastly different and clearly have contradictory beliefs, they are all under the "Christian" umbrella. This is because they believe in Jesus, the Christian God and follow, at least what they have been told about, the bible. 

A Catholic, with all their biblical scholars, will tell you that their interpretation of the Christian faith is clearly the correct one. They will tell you that the rest of the denominations have got it skewered. The Catholic church is the largest and most powerful Christian church with a lot of "real" scholars. That doesn't make any other Christian denomination or offshoot un-christian. 

IS believes that their Islamic God condones and encourages their behaviour. They believe that their interpretation of the Koran is correct. They are an Islamic group. Whether mainstream Islam agrees with their positions isn't really relevant. They fight in the name of Allah.

[Guest]

It doesn't really matter whether their interpretation of the religion is right or wrong, that's not what we are discussing. There are thousands of sects of Christianity, all of which think they are correct and have the correct interpretation of their faith. Although these denominations are vastly different and clearly have contradictory beliefs, they are all under the "Christian" umbrella. This is because they believe in Jesus, the Christian God and follow, at least what they have been told about, the bible. 

A Catholic, with all their biblical scholars, will tell you that their interpretation of the Christian faith is clearly the correct one. They will tell you that the rest of the denominations have got it skewered. The Catholic church is the largest and most powerful Christian church with a lot of "real" scholars. That doesn't make any other Christian denomination or offshoot un-christian. 

IS believes that their Islamic God condones and encourages their behaviour. They believe that their interpretation of the Koran is correct. They are an Islamic group. Whether mainstream Islam agrees with their positions isn't really relevant. They fight in the name of Allah.

But everything they do in contradicts the quran

[Bebe 17,289]

But everything they do in contradicts the quran

And hating gay people contradicts the message of love and peace in the bible, or hating gay people is a core teaching of the bible. It varies between Christian to Christian.

I'm sure what IS does is contrary to what the quran states, but that's not how they see things.

[lego 44,165]

It doesn't really matter whether their interpretation of the religion is right or wrong, that's not what we are discussing. There are thousands of sects of Christianity, all of which think they are correct and have the correct interpretation of their faith. Although these denominations are vastly different and clearly have contradictory beliefs, they are all under the "Christian" umbrella. This is because they believe in Jesus, the Christian God and follow, at least what they have been told about, the bible. 

A Catholic, with all their biblical scholars, will tell you that their interpretation of the Christian faith is clearly the correct one. They will tell you that the rest of the denominations have got it skewered. The Catholic church is the largest and most powerful Christian church with a lot of "real" scholars. That doesn't make any other Christian denomination or offshoot un-christian. 

IS believes that their Islamic God condones and encourages their behaviour. They believe that their interpretation of the Koran is correct. They are an Islamic group. Whether mainstream Islam agrees with their positions isn't really relevant. They fight in the name of Allah.

I disagree. A Christian sect which acts opposite of what Bible says and does things which are forbidden in their religion can be seen as UnChristian. Their behaviour can be seen as un-Christian. Same with those who join "IS", they can be muslims, but muslims can also be criminals who act against their religion and deserve punishment in (real) Islamic state, not this fictional one.

[Bebe 17,289]

I disagree. A Christian sect which acts opposite of what Bible says and does things which are forbidden in their religion can be seen as UnChristian. Their behaviour can be seen as un-Christian. Same with those who join "IS", they can be muslims, but muslims can also be criminals who act against their religion and deserve punishment in (real) Islamic state, not this fictional one.

There are Christian churches that perform gay marriages and there are Christian churches that will banish members that are homos-xual. Which one of these churches are acting opposite to what their faith teaches? Which church is un-Christian?

IS is horrible, any reasonable person detests them regardless of their religious background. They are still an Islamic group, we can't just pretend they don't follow an interpretation of Islam because it is convenient. 

[garnite 8]

here's an article in response to that one, saying that by doing this you risk making everything worse

 

http://leftfootforward.org/2014/09/by-denouncing-isis-as-not-muslims-moderate-muslims-risk-making-things-worse/