First, I’d like to point out thatÂ almost no one I know thinks that ISIS are good guys.

They also don’t think they are the astronomical threat to all humanity that they are made out to be.

They feel that the media gives them way too much play.

Do they (and I) believe they are off their rockers? Yes.

Do they (and I) believe that they too will pass? Yes.

Do they (and I) believe that some other group will be propped up in their place? Probably (Remember Khorasan?)

ISIS is a miniscule sliver in the ocean of Muslims worldwide. Take a look at this:

If you believe that, why are you writing this?

Good question. I believe that we as Muslims are caught in a thought loop. Our conversations about ISIS are ones that confirm us as the good guys, confirm ISIS as the bad guys, and confirm to those we are fearful of that “we are good people and you are safe.” I wrote this because I believe this bubble needs to be popped. You probably will not like this if you are looking for the “Glorious Divine Thunderbolts against the Insanity of the ISIS Dolts” (those of you familiar with Arabic refutations will get that). This is not an expose of ISIS, nor is it a refutation or triumphant response to their stupidity. It certainly is not a justification for them either, but instead is meant to promoteÂ introspection, especially for Muslims.

If you came here looking for a fiery repudiation or a verse for verse take down, then you should probably stop reading now.

ISIS is not Islamic, except when it is, but it stillÂ isn’t

Most if not all responses to the issue of ISIS have fit neatly into this group’s leadership being traditional/charismatic in nature. You’ll hear those that are against ISIS (and some that are against all things Islam) say âISIS is really, really Islamic.â Why you ask? Well look at them citing all those Quran verses and listen to the credos they rattle off to cement their own legitimacy. This reminds me of a bad joke told in the Arab world: An Arab ruler goes to France, and as soon as he comes back mandates that all children in his country are provided early language lessons in French. When asked later by a confidante, he intimates to him âYou’ll never believe this, but even the children in France know how to speak French fluently!â

On the other hand, those that are against them say âISIS is really, really un-Islamic.â Reason: they have no âclerics of reputeâ (a completely subjective term). This is certainly not a proper rebuttal, and really is just an appeal to authority. How could it be proper when most “clerics of repute” who’ve spoken out about ISIS have themselves supported oppressive regimes that do as bad or worse to their own populations? Like it or not, just as scholars in Syria aren’t subordinate to those in Egypt, nor are those in Morocco subordinate to those in Yemen, people purported to be scholars and in the service of ISIS are not subordinate to any other scholarly body. It must be said however that whom you are attached to is not as important as the argument you are making, and so there is such a thing as legitimate scholarship which is closer and more faithful to holistic readings of texts than others. âMen are known through the truth,â stated Ali b. Abi Taleb, ânot the truth through men.â

âSo much room â¦ for activities!â

The article that launched a thousand blog posts and articles has to be The Atlantic’s piece by Graeme Wood. In no necessary order this was followed by: H.A. Hellyer, Yasir Qadhi and Daniel Jou, Haroon Moghul, Steve Niva, Jack Jenkins, Ross Douthat, and Steven Mazie. (Edit 2/25/2015: I’ve followed up this article with a list of all responses, scroll to the bottom.) I will not attempt to pick apart these articles or address the issues in each. Some of these are stronger than others. SomeÂ of them amount to a whole lot of bitching about nothing. Some of them draw conclusions from incomplete information. Others perpetuate age old orientalist tropes on the nature of radicalism in the Muslim world. A few make the important point that we should not be doing what groups like ISIS want, branding them as the only valid interpretation and not giving any credence to other more holistic and amenable ones. What I will say is that these explanations don’t sufficiently explain the nature of ISIS. There have been a plethora of Muslim populations that have sustained invasion, mass murder, colonization, and oppressive governments without resorting to what ISIS has resorted to. There are a few inconvenient truths that Muslims (and other apologists) do not want to admit to or engage openly. This is a disservice to the cause of clarifying Islamic Law and securing the safety of Muslim communities.

To me, all of these articles miss the point on a very crucial issue: Islamic discussions of politics are centered on creating and sustaining “pious dictators.” This model of governance upholds the persona of the Caliph/Imam/Ameer/Sultan as the Prophet’s Vicar. It grants both religious and political legitimacy by viewing the right to rule as somehow deriving from the will of God.

Now imagine this scenario:

You are lonely frontiersman. You have your plot of land and your well of water. You discover oil but are unable to drill. You and all your neighbors are in the same predicament. An oil baron moves in. Tells you that Christ loves you, and that part of that love is for you to love and serve him, the baron. When you refuse, he denies you work. Poisons your wells. Kills your kids. Rapes your wife. Cripples you and spits on your parents. A local gang leader shows up and says: Let’s show these bastards what we’re made of! My cousin has a revival tent, and he’ll be sure to get the crowd riled up to help you, if you can share the glory of the Lord (*wink*wink*) with God’s humble servants.

Why live in service of the glory of the baron’s lord when you can have your own lord and all the glory too? With socio-political conditions like these, it is only natural for an ISIS to arise. If I can be my own divinely appointed king, why would I listen to your ministers that appoint you? Religious texts are used (as they have been through our history) to promote power and authority. But what is it about Islamic texts that bring about an ISIS? To me, the issue of power and authority have more to do with this than any other issue, including Takfir.

Everyone does Takfir

There is a heavy aversion to Takfir in Islamic thought. Prophetic traditions state,”When one of your calls his brother a Kafir (unbeliever) then it applies to one of them.â That said, everyone has done takfir. Everyone. It would simply be a bore to list all of the instances of takfir that are mentioned by aÂ varietyÂ of Islamic ideological groups. Books of Islamic Law and theology are rife with lists of acts that if performed dictate that a person has abandoned faith and must renew it. Some of them reach the level of adjudicating the issue and having a judge decide the person’s fate. All agree however that the punishments for leaving faith (known as ridda) are not meted out in a wanton fashion by just anyone, but they must be performed by the “legitimate ruler of the Muslims or his appointee.” Here’s the problem: Just as you have your texts, scholars, and reasons, so does ISIS. Just as you promote yourselves, scholars, and rulers as the “legitimate ruler(s) of the Muslims or his appointee(s)â” so does ISIS. So making an appeal to the illegitimacy of Takfir in your argument with ISIS will not work. Blaming the Wahhabis (yawn) will not work. Telling us Turkey (through Erdogan) is to blame, will not work. Making it all political with no religious influence, will not work.

The issue here is not whether ISIS is Islamic.

Things are labeled “Islamic.” What does that even mean? When was this a term used in our history except in the modern period as a group identifier of all things indicative of Muslim orthodoxy? It was used as a broad descriptor for ideas/movements that appeared in Islamicate cultures and lands. So is ISIS Islamic? Depends on how you define Islamic. If you consider the latest “Native Deen” album or Iznik tile collection to be Islamic, then yes. And if you are speaking about a cultural descriptor, in the vein of Hodgson’s definition of Islamicate, then yes. Qadhi and Jou’s article makes this point well at #13, differentiating between descriptive and explanatory use, which really is the best contribution to the conversation made in that article.

But if you limit the conversation strictly to terms of governance and political operations (and the theological and legal implications tied to them), you really can’t say anything more about them being Islamic than “Well yes, but they are renegades (Ahl al-Baghy).” Renegades (Ahl al-Baghy) were Muslims revolted, using violence to rectify some wrong. I know, for some critics this is not enough, but most Muslims find requests by non-Muslims to excommunicate ISIS to be inane. Why would I now do to them, what they easily do to me?

Even for a Muslim to say that we don’t do Takfir and instead we classify them as Renegades (Ahl al-Baghy) has its own consequences. By doing this, you are acknowledging their grievances. You are showing that their use of religion as a force multiplier was only to draw attention to the oppression they’ve presumably faced. This means their motives and intentions to stand against oppression could possibly be characterized as “Islamic” in an explanatory sense, but their actions cannot be “Islamic” in the descriptive sense. Well according to you, that is. They have their own way of looking at things.

Two Ways of Looking At It

The previous way of looking at things, whether right or wrong, whether we like it or not, is connected to Muslims and to Islamic thought. Arguing about the extent to which ISIS deserves the attribution of Islamic is really, really useless without looking at what it is they saw in Islamic thought that motivated them out of an apolitical nihilistic delusion to a politically apocalyptic delusion. If other nations are the baron supported by God, why wouldn’t the frontiersman become a baron as well?

If one were to argue the point, and if government is a monopoly on violence Ã la Weber: then why is ISIS not a government? They claim to be, and they have a monopoly on violence. Other Muslim scholars are saying they are not, but why? Why is what ISIS has done any different than what has happened throughout history? From the Fatimids, the Moravids, the Ayyubids, the Seljuks, the Ottomans, the Hashemites, Aal Saud, and even Sisi in modern Egypt. All used religious rhetoric of some sort coupled with some form of authority and violence to establish themselves. Each of them viewed themselves as the “legitimate ruler of the Muslims” or as “the Prophet’s Vicar” or as “God’s Authority (Sultan) in the earth.” What makes your form of violence any more legitimate than their form of violence? Can we reasonably counter one claim of a monopoly on violence (i.e. ISIS) with an equal claim to that violence (i.e. Majority Islamic States)? The religious rhetoric about what it means to have authority and be the âlegitimate leader of the Muslimsâ has to change. Yes, some things about Islamic thought have to change.

God’s Pious Dictators

The differentiating factor here has to be that the agent of force we support is one that is not just a monopoly on violence but is an accountable one, limited institutionally and accountable institutionally. Medieval Islamic governance focused on producing “God’s Pious Dictators.” This system will not produce the forms of governments that are needed for sustainability in the Muslim World. It can easily be said that ISIS is about as Islamic as all the “Islamic” nations opposing it, regardless of which scholars (of repute or not) support them. As Muslims we can do a lot better for the Middle East, the Muslim World, and the rest of the world by getting out of our shells, engaging our history and law critically. We need to reevaluate how our faith interacts with political power, engages that power, and holds that power accountable. This is not a call for secular humanism. We need to engage with our tradition in a manner that meets the standards of legitimate interpretation, but also the needs of modern social order.Â We need to build a religious framework that can encourage accountability and due process.

Addendum: In order to keep everything in one place, I decided to update links to other articles that come out on the topic.

UpdateÂ 2/25/2015: I’ve added a bunch of other articles on the topic, along with brief comments on each (including those mentioned above). Having read all of them, I stand by myÂ assertionsÂ above. In fact, some of these pieces only confirmed for me what I was referring toÂ above. I’ve included everything I’ve come across, Â which including this post comes to 20 in number. The summaries below are quotes from the articles that sum them up, along with some of my impressions.

-Â The Atlantic’s piece by Graeme Wood. The article that started it all.

The responses: