Thread by @SameralAtrush

A well meaning (and partially true) tweet that nonetheless simplifies a very real problem that Muslim jurists (and counter extremist thinkers) have yet to address properly

https://twitter.com/CraigCons/status/1317444290864447490

It's an issue that came to a head with ISIS, which on a daily basis committed unspeakable atrocities in the name of religion. At the time I was particularly interested in how traditional Islamic scholars who denounced those acts would respond.

The main problem was the following: for each atrocity, ISIS was able to reproduce citations from the Quran, sunnah and scholarly works justifying the deed. The denunciations (by Azhar for example) were sparse on proofs.

This isn't to say ISIS correctly interpreted those proofs. Interpreting scriptures and translating them into a law is sophisticated discipline that was often beyond their grasp.

For instance, in an interview I asked the unlamented British ISIS member Omar Hussein how he justified to himself the Manchester concert bombing, seeing as the act was sure to kill young girls.

Classic scholars had made an allowance for "collateral" killings, citing the fact that the prophet conducted night raids (you can't really see who you're attacking) and used a catapult once. But surely not intentionally targeting children, I asked?

Hussein responded (I'm not joking): "As for the killing of little girls then it is permissible 2 kill the kuffaar as they kill us. I don't remember the exact verse, google it inshallah"

Another British jihadist announced that he believed himself to now be a mujtahid and capable of excommunicating Muslims (he posthumously excommunicated Saudi jurist Bin Baz) while a third set about theorizing about ISIS being a promised caliphate.

But tangents aside, ISIS often reproduced verses from scriptures and canon. Take for instance the tweet cited at the start of this thread: ISIS/AQ types would simply respond: yes, the prophet did forebear in Mecca before the hijra. After hijra, it was different

Killings were ordered or accepted for insults. In the internet age anyone can simply google "punishment for insulting prophet" and find pages such as this, a Salafi website that reads "proofs from the sunnah for killing someone who insults the prophet"

What counter extremist Muslim jurists have to do is provide clear and convincing explanations why those verses and hadiths are to be interpreted differently--and that doesn't happen very often for various reasons.

Take for example one such attempt, the famous Letter to Baghdadi signed by jurists such as Bin Bayah (who can definitely refute such positions in detail yet signed of on this anyway) lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14…

Point No 8 clearly doesn't apply to much of the futuhat (was the conquest of Spain defensive?) Point 9 is sophistry: a person can pronounce what's considered disbelief yet insist he's a Muslim

Point 11 takes a non obligation and mysteriously turns it into an obligation. Point 12, to the mind of any classic jurist who's just looking at the technicalities, is the most egregious:

There's no record of a "universal consensus", and brings to mind Ibn Hanbal's maxim: whoever claims consensus is a liar."

Points 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24: all would fly in the face of apparent proofs a google search away which ISIS would cite copiously. In short, jurists have to do much better.

In a sense, the response to extremists often mirror's their shoddy methodology, which is to cherry pick. The substratums are different: for ISIS it was just find the proof that supports the violence, while their opponents picked instances that appeared to refute them.

Take for instance the horrific burning of Jordanian pilot Muath al Kassasbeh

https://twitter.com/SameralAtrush/status/1317742390032125952?s=20

Here, we see clerics saying burning is an "considered an abomination under Islam."

in.reuters.com/article/mideas…

Article says:

"The Islamic State posted a religious edict on Twitter, which ruled that it is permissible in Islam to burn an infidel to death.

However, senior clerics across the Islamic world argued that inflicting death by fire was always banned under Islam."

So what I mean by both approaches being similar in methodology: of the 4 current schools of Sunni jurisprudence, three do indeed ban burnings--including the Hanbali school which is in some ways closest to Salafi doctrine

Yet the Shafei school permits it (and before anyone quibbles about which Shafei school, it's in what we can call the 'authorized' texts). ISIS of course are not Shafeis and in essence pretty antiethical to the Shafei approach, but there you go.

What neither side does it, in the event of such a disagreement, is explain why this is the "correct" action. It just happens to be position that suits them better. Other ISIS classics included citing Qurtubi's shall we say unusual exegesis of the khilafa verse at their launch

Above isn't to say that CVE approaches to ISIS/AQ etc all need to be grounded in a complete rethink and clear approach to a reformist principles of jurisprudence (though that would be nice) but when Muslim jurists engage in it, they'd best be more dilligent

It's clearly not the only factor or the overriding one in radicalization--some of those British jihadists I'd mentioned above read "Islam for Dummies" to brush up on their knowledge--they didn't commit via a disinterested study of doctrine... I doubt any radical has.

(from my own limited observations, those who do deep dive into such matters end up pondering abstracts like "if a goat and a pig were to breed theoretically, would the issue be pure or impure", rather than joining ISIS..)

ps I wish I'd asked Hussein whether that would apply hold true the "kuffar" took to killing Muslims by immolating them on a stack of Qurans, but anyway he's moved on now

https://twitter.com/SameralAtrush/status/1317731549551513600?s=20