Bale's analysis is correct but misses a few key points
Reader comment on item: Analysis: Does the Islamic State Really Have 'Nothing to Do with Islam'?

Submitted by dlp, Oct 10, 2014 22:38

Bale's article is generally correct in its analysis. Its key claim is that the claim that IS is 'un-Islamic' is false and that this can be demonstrated by reference to the belligerent suras in the Quran and Muhammad's example in the sunna. That there are certainly verses in the Quran and exhortations in the sunna that sanction jihad against unbelievers for the supremacy of Islam is quite easy to show, though Bale could have made better reference to the particular hadiths that comprise the sunna's teachings on jihad. Bale's argument could also have been greater supported with reference the legal codification of the jihad imperative in the classic manuals of sharia, as well as historical examples of explicit references to jihad doctrine as motivating the expansion of Islam. Thus far, we can show that Islam is interpretable in a belligerent way and has been historically by reference to the scripture in Islamic history. All of this, however, fails to acknowledge that the entire basis for the texts to be taken seriously in the way that they are as the 'revealed' word of God through Gabriel and Muhammad has a particular history that continues today. That they are deemed applicable beyond the context of Muhammad's alleged life (this isn't even clear from the lack of historical evidence) is down to the early ascendance of one legalistic paradigm, that of al-Shafi; this way of interpreting the texts is something that IS has embraced. Thus, not only are the teachings that they refer to and that motivates them Islamic in the most orthodox sense - even though they are subject to dispute by weak reformists - the manner of interpretation of them is too. Any attempt to challenge the basis of the Islamic State's Islamic authenticity rests not with denying the existence of belligerent suras, as Obama, Cameron and others do, but with challenging the orthodox manner of interpretation. This is itself a part of Islamic tradition that often goes unnoticed but is one that needs to be repealed for any serious reform of Islam. Since this is just an extract from a longer more academic piece, maybe Bale will cover these in the full article.

Note: IPT will moderate reader comments. We reserve the right to edit or remove any comment we determine to be inappropriate. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that include swearing, name calling, or offensive language involving race, religion or ethnicity. All comments must include an email address for verification.