So is ISIS a species of Islam or not?

 The New York Times reported yesterday that several American Islamic associations refuse to refer to ISIS—which stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria–as Islamic.

President Obama is now widely quoted as saying last month that “ISIL is not Islamic.”

Even Al Qaeda has taken recently to denouncing ISIS for seizing innocent aid workers. Unstated implication—“they are not truly Islamic.”

One of the most common rationales for these denunciations is that Islam is a religion of peace. Last month UK PM David Cameron said, “Islam is a religion of peace.” His predecessor Tony Blair said “there is no doubt about [Islam’s] true and peaceful nature.” President Obama has said as much.

But is this true? That Islam is a religion of peace?

If we go to the Qur’an we do indeed find statements of a pacific nature. “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors . . . . There is no compulsion in religion. . . . If anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—It would be as if he slew the whole people” (2:190; 2:256; 5;32).

At the same time, the Qur’an commands its readers to “slay the Pagans wherever you find them” (9.5), and to “behead the unbelievers [the Meccans who do not accept Islam] and cut off their fingertips” (8:12).

According to traditional Muslim commentary, the Pagans had betrayed a treaty with Muhammad, and the Meccans were on their way home from Palestine with a caravan.  But readers without this commentary could interpret these commands as applicable to any non-Muslims at any time. The text of the Qur’an itself does not make the context clear.

But then doesn’t the Bible also contain exhortations to violence?

It does. God told the prophet Samuel to order the destruction of all the Amalekites, “both man and woman, child and infant” (1 Sam 15:3).

Yet there are important differences between Islam and Christianity on violence, when it comes to the texts and the founders.

First, the texts. In the Bible the reader sees that the call to kill is in a story of something that happened thousands of years ago. Readers don’t get the impression they are told to kill now. In fact, when they come to the New Testament, authority to kill is given to the state (Romans 13) not the church.

But in the Qur’an there are very few developed stories, and the commands to kill are interspersed throughout the text, most of the time on their own, apart from stories, with no sense of context.

So it is much easier for a reader of the Qur’an to get the impression that he should take this command–to slay the unbeliever–to heart today. This is why it is easier for terrorists who read the Qur’an to think they are doing God’s will than for would-be terrorists who read the Bible. It may also be at least one important reason why—while most Muslims are not terrorists—most terrorists are Muslims.

While traditionalist Islam for centuries condemned the Kharijites, a sect of Muslims that encouraged seeking martyrdom by attacking supposed heretics and unbelievers, in the last century the Muslim Brotherhood has encouraged suicide bombing and other kinds of militant jihad by using these and other texts in the Qur’an for support.

A second difference is the matter of founders. Muhammad, the founder of what has come to be known as Islam, was not only a religious leader but also a military commander. He served as soldier and magistrate. His biographer Ibn Ishaq says he fought in twenty-seven battles. He ordered the death of forty-three opponents, including several opponents who criticized him in verse. After a Jewish tribe was found to be planning with the Meccans a rear attack on the Muslims, Muhammad’s men attacked the Jews. When the tribe surrendered, between 600 and 900 men were beheaded, and the women and children were sold as slaves.  Muhammad apparently signed off on these beheadings and sales.

In contrast, Jesus refused to lead an army or head a party to resist those who were trying to destroy him. He told Peter not to fight his arrest.

Two more relevant points. “Islam” means not “peace” but “surrender.” And “peace” for the Islamic tradition does not mean the cessation of war but the final result when all the world shall have submitted to the Prophet.

All this is not to say, however, that most Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism. Most want to raise their children in peace and provide a good future for them. Many, like UCLA law professor Khaled Abou El Fadl, condemn terrorism. El Fadl calls for a “pluralistic, tolerant, and nonviolent Islam.” He receives death threats for criticizing those he calls “puritans” and their narrow reading of the Qur’an—privileging the jihad verses over those that call for mercy and moderation.

So is ISIS an Islamic group? Well, think of the Inquisition. It perpetrated dastardly deeds, including torture and murder, upon those who did not conform to its version of true religion. Its leaders were self-described Christians, and probably did what they did for a mixture of reasons, both self-interested and theological. We would say that they were bad Christians, implementing a terrible version of Christianity. But most of us would concede it was a noxious kind of . . . Christianity.

So too, I think, for ISIS. It is animated by people who think they are obeying Allah, following what they think the Qur’an and Hadith (books of the words and deeds of Muhammad) say. Most Muslims say it is not true Islam—just as Christians say the Inquisition was not true Christianity.

But if the Inquisition was a bad form of Christianity, then ISIS is a bad kind of . . . Islam.