In the previous blog on Islamic ideology I focused on the historical development of the religion of Islam and of the terrorist groups that arose later.  But Islam is also a religion in its own right and is based on a written source—the Quran—which is subject to various interpretations.  It is true that for a time the Islamic caliphates attempted to uniformize interpretation of the Quran, but this effort was ultimately unsuccessful.  The Islamic radicals bear that conclusion out in their own interpretations and the theological conclusions they draw from them.  The radical groups do however have common ideas.  What do they share in common ideologically?

Though they sometimes do not agree all hold the following more or less  in common.

First, they hate the West, that is especially the United States as the epitome of western values and capitalism—and what they perceive as decadence.  Those values, in their interpretation of Islam, don’t match and given the historical and theological solutions to the existence of the West, ought to be eliminated.  This of course includes killing of Western citizens, non-Muslims (sometimes even moderate Muslims).  Ironically, our Western decadence is personally condoned by some groups in personal ethical behavior.

Second they have an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Quran itself.  They interpret it very literally in certain respects, woodenly literally, so that beating ones wife, for example, is encouraged, killing the “Infidel” is sanctioned, even if he is not actually at war with Islam, etc.  Oddly however, since the Quran contains little in the way of personal ethics (contrasting with the Christian Scriptures), one’s personal life is often a wide open field.  Yes, there are external prohibitions regarding alcohol, but for males, one finds little else and so private behavior can be debauched.  Some take it to the opposite extreme—in some aspects—by living an austere and isolated life, but still without clear moral standards.

Third, the “Fundamentalists” (or, as some prefer, Neo-Fundamentalists) take the Quran first as their primary religious authority, but also accept the “recognized” Haddith as authoritative.  The Haddith are collections of stories of Muhammed’s life that have been passed down.  There are about 6,000 such stories, not all recognized as valid.  So one looks first to the Quran, interpreted as I said, quite literally.  Interestingly another work often invoked by radicals is the early 20^th century Protocols of the Elders of Zion (c. 1903) which purported to uncover a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.   This one is still popular and even taught in some places to young people as true.

Fourth, most of the radical groups would ideally like to see a world ruled by Islam, specifically an Islamic state, applying Quranic principles of law.  The “New Caliphate” of ISIS represents this kind of thinking, but it is not confined to ISIS. Of course Islamic legal theory would apply the principles of the Quran as interpreted by the most fundamental jurists—both living and dead.  Picture for now the current nation of Iran as an approximation of this ideal.

Fifth, more specifically, as I have already said, the radical terrorists advocate killing anyone who does not agree with their ideas and practices, including both non-Muslims and moderate Muslims.  This approach is traced back to the radical perception of Islamic history, in the wars during the life of Muhammed and after his death as Islam continued to advance.  It is taken however to a new level, with terrorism applied to any “innocents” also—because to them there are no innocents.  We are all collectively the “Great Satan.”  In addition, the wrath of the terrorists is aimed particularly at the Jews, the historic (but only recently bitterly-hated) enemy of Islam.  We know of course of the stated intent of some Islamic terrorist organizations to obliterate Israel and kill all Jews.  This can even be seen in a more formal way as far back as World War II, when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem spent the war years in Hitler’s company plotting how to eliminate all the Jews in Palestine.

These are a few of the beliefs of radical Islam, a loosely defined group of individuals formed into loose organizations bent on bringing about destruction to the West and a resurrection of “real” Islam.  Are all Muslims to be seen this way, an oft-asked question?  Of course not.  We do see moderate or “westernized” Muslims who disdain terrorist objectives and means.  They are on the opposite side.  But in the great middle of the hundreds of millions of Muslims are those who are basically subsistence-level poor, uneducated, tightly controlled by their governments and very easily swayed by propaganda.  They are not participants in terrorism, but they all too often support its results and come to believe the terrorists are in the right.  And here is an interesting statistical speculation.  If only 1% of all Muslims are radical, that would still amount to around 13 million.

It is a difficult battle the West, especially the United States, faces.  The “war on terrorism” is not by any means over.  But do the United States government and especially the people of America have the political will to fight against this terrorism?  When it directly affects us, I believe we do—witness 9/11.  And there are legitimate questions of how far we ought to go to intervene when there is no direct threat.  Is the US goal to create democracy (whatever that means) in the Islamic world a realistic goal at all, given the historical situation in the Islamic world?  This problem also intersects with current immigration issues.  If the southern border is a sieve, a sieve is pretty indiscriminate.  Determined terrorists could easily make it into the US and “disappear” until they perpetrate an attack.

Another issue to be seriously considered by Christians, but which I cannot answer here, has to do with whether the US ought to have invaded or otherwise intervened in the various Middle Eastern controversies in the first place—Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sryria, Egypt, and the Palestine-Israel conflict.  Some very respected believers argue that since most of those situations were not for self-defense intervention was not acceptable and in fact ended up harming Christians in those regions.  Other Christians hold that it is always appropriate (in theory at least) to intervene for humanitarian reasons.  And of course may Christians consistently argue for the interests of Israel for eschatological reasons, although the line between Israel’s interests and the actions of some Arabic nations is sometimes difficult to discern as those actions may not be aimed at Israel but at other Western nations like the US.  This issue is by no means easy to solve.  Self-defense seems appropriate at any time, while humanitarian intervention can be ambiguous and (often) inconsistent, and can, as I have said, have unintended consequences.  Coming to the aid of Israel simply because it is Israel and appears in end-times prophecy has its own hermeneutical debates, as well as potential ethical dilemmas.  So I merely raise the issue.  Perhaps I will return to it in a later blog.

There are more issues to be addressed.  But hopefully this will serve as something of an introduction to the problem.

Note:  If you are interested in reading more, I recommend works by Bernard Lewis on the Arab Muslims.  But you are best served by reading an English translation of the Quran and then watching how it is interpreted by radical Muslims.