That's Not Islam At All

The One Thing . . . 

One of the ways the ostrichian West has responded to Islamic terrorist attacks in general, and ISIS in particular, has been to argue variants of the following:
"These terrorists attacks have nothing to do with religion."
"They have nothing to do with Islam."
"Islam is the religion of peace; the extremist violence is anti-Islam."

At first blush they have a point.  It is evident on every hand that most violence in the Islamic "world" consists of professing Islamic believers killing and maiming, enslaving and raping other Islamic believers.  Clearly this is contrary to the teachings of the Prophet. 

The Quran clearly states that "(i)f a man kills a Believer [Muslim] intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (forever): and the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him."  It also states that a Muslim may not take "life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law." [Cited by Jay Sekulow, Rise of Isis (New York: Howard Books, 2014), p.30.]

There are also a series of hadiths (recorded sayings of Muhammad) expanding on this doctrine:

The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god by Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three: a married adulterer, someone killed in retaliation for killing another, or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community. . . .

The killing of a believer [Muslim] is more heinous in Allah's sight than doing away with all of this world. . . .

The Prophet said, "A Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue and hands." . . .

Some people asked Allah's Apostle, "Whose Islam is the best? (i.e., Who is a very good Muslim?)"  He replied, "One who avoids harming the Muslims with his tongue and hands."  [Ibid, p. 30f]

All of this is manifestly clear. Therefore, when Islamic believers attack and kill other Islamic believers the West is entitled to conclude that the perps are not truly Islamic and that they do not genuinely represent that religion.

Except . . . If it were possible to brand the professing Islamic person a heretic--someone who had abandoned his religion and the Muslim community--then killing, murdering, torturing, raping, enslaving that person is entirely justified, and thoroughly Islamic.  Of course that's precisely what ISIS and other "extremists" do.  That is at the heart of their theological ratiocination and scholastic syllogisms. 

Consequently, the West's apologia for Islam is tritely superficial at best, wilfully self-deceiving at worst.

But there is a deeper issue at play here.  Because Islamic theology considers Allah to be monistic, there is very little celebration of diversity and pluriformity within Islamic belief, practice, and behaviour.  Whilst Muhammad was alive, there was only one authority: Allah was one, and Muhammad was his (sole) prophet.

But once the Apostle died, variants and differences arose immediately.  The only way the differences could be resolved was by extermination of one sort of another.  That is why Islam, far from being a religion of peace, has been the diametric opposite. Islam has carried out perpetual war against heretics--which is to say, fellow (now excommunicate) Muslims. It is not by accident that the history of Islam has not produced ecumenical councils, discussions, debates, colloquies, and conferences all searching for the authentic Islamic teaching.  Rather, it has been a history of submission by force--as one variant has sought to impose rule and control upon others. And it has to have been that way.  For there is one monistic god, one prophet, and one way.  Differences of view and opinion implicitly deny such precepts and doctrines.

This is the necessary and inevitable outcome of a monistic deity and a monistic religion. 

Therefore, when Western leaders and Chatterers assert that ISIS and the terrorists are not authentically Islamic they merely betray their superficiality and ignorance.