A primer on Islam and Islamism

ISIS and its barbarities are just the latest manifestation of Islamic Jihad. Tim Dieppe, Director of Islamic Affairs at Christian Concern, UK, agrees with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, that in order to defeat ISIS we must deal with the ideology driving their actions. Archbishop Welby, in a speech delivered in Paris in November during a ceremony in which he was awarded an honorary doctorate said:

"It is time to stop repeating the popular politically correct mantra that ISIS has 'nothing to do with Islam'. If we treat religiously-motivated violence solely as a security issue, or a political issue, then it will be incredibly difficult – probably impossible – to overcome it. Until religious leaders stand up and take responsibility for the actions of those who do things in the name of their religion, we will see no resolution"

Words of sense and truth from the Archbishop which prompted a number of headlines delighting in the politically incorrect nature of his comments.

This contradicts calls from several high profile figures for people not to use the term 'Islamic State'. Last year, then Prime Minister David Cameron criticised the BBC for using the term 'Islamic State', and a letter signed by more than 120 MPs was sent to the BBC director general complaining about its use of the term. The BBC's Head of Religion and Ethics however, Professor Aaqil Ahmed, himself a Muslim, argued earlier this year that "The Islamic State are Muslims and their doctrine is Islamic."

It is worth clarifying what is meant by saying that 'Islamic State is Islamic'. Clearly, Islamic Sate does not represent most Muslims. A minority of Muslims support Islamic State, though not an insignificant minority. I do not have the data for Australia but according to the Independent Communications and Marketing (ICM) Research survey of Muslims in Britain, 7% supported the objective to create an Islamic State, and 3% supported the way in which ISIS is establishing a Caliphate. From a population of 2.7m Muslims, that would make 80,000 people supporting ISIS in the UK alone.

Dieppe writes that "To say that 'Islamic State is Islamic', at a minimum means that those leading 'Islamic State' self-identify as Muslim. This is clearly true, but we can go further and say that not only do they themselves identify as Muslims, they also consciously want 'Islamic State' to be identified as Islamic. Hence their chosen name.

"At this point it becomes somewhat Orwellian to deny that 'Islamic State' has anything to do with Islam, but we can go further still, and ask whether their doctrines and practices adhere to the doctrines and teaching of Muhammad and the Koran. This is the real test. If 'Islamic State' ignored Mohammed's teaching, or clearly obtained their ideas from outside Islam then there would be grounds for denying that they are really Islamic."

Archbishop Welby compares 'Islamic State' with Christian militia in the Central African Republic, and Hindu nationalist persecution of Christians in South India, arguing that we can't say that these groups have 'nothing to do with' Christianity or Hinduism. In this, of course, he is quite right.

These groups do have something to do with their religions. They clearly pass the self-identification tests. But do they pass the doctrine and practice test? Jesus was not a war leader, neither did he lead violent campaigns. In fact Jesus criticised Peter for using a sword to defend him (Matthew 26:52). Hinduism has no clear founder or single text, so is harder to define doctrinally. Mohammed was a warrior who led several violent campaigns and whose religion has since been spread by the sword.

This means that a violent group that kills those who refuse to accept Islam can claim to be following Mohammed's teaching and example. Numerous texts in the Koran support this practice, whereas a group that kills those who refuse to accept Christianity cannot claim to be following Jesus' teaching or example.

A cursory look at any issue of the Islamic State's magazine Dabiq will show how keen they are to ground all their doctrine and practice from the teaching and example of Mohammed. So we are left with 'Islamic State' being Islamic in name, self-identification, doctrine, and practice, whilst noting that this does not mean that most Muslims agree with its practice.

The Archbishop said that "in order to defeat terrorism, we need to understand the mind-set of those who perpetrate it." He then elaborated: "However depraved it may be, groups like ISIS have an ideology, indeed a theology – which is at the heart of their propaganda, and therefore the driving force – which holds an apocalyptic understanding of human history, not as a loose term but in its strictest technical terms: they believe that the world is about to end, that the Prophet will return with Jesus, and will defeat the western powers."

He is right in stating that we are not fighting terrorism, which is only a tactic, we are fighting an ideology that makes use of terrorism. In order to defeat this ideology, we must first name it, and then understand it.

I agree with the Archbishop Welby that it is time to stop saying ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Let's hope that politicians and the media listen to his advice.

A first step in Australia would be for the Federal Government to call a meeting of all Islamic preachers, sheiks and community leaders and ask them to abrogate all verses in the Koran advocating violence - and to implement this in their preaching and teaching in mosques, schools and elsewhere. It is a big ask, but we have to start somewhere. No golf club would be allowed to exist if it advocated the death penalty for those members who terminated their membership. Why should Islam be allowed to get away with such advocacy?