Question

After reading Sohaira Siddiqui's article, answer the following questions:

According to Siddiqui, how does ISIS justify its actions based on the religious texts? Explain at least one of the detailed examples she provides.

How do ISIS' rulings and actions transgress the “objectives of the Shari'a” outlined by 11^th century jurists, according to Siddiqui?

Finally, what is your opinion on the problem of scriptural interpretation (in any religious tradition)? In other words: Who gets to decide, ultimately, which interpretation of a sacred text is correct?

ARTICLE:

Isis Interpretation of Islamic Scripture By Sohaira Siddiqui About the author: Sohaira Siddiqui wrote a thoughtful post for Jadaliyya on how the Islamic State approaches the medieval scholastic tradition of Islamic jurisprudence. She’s an assistant professor of Islamic theology at Georgetown University's Qatar campus, so she’s got a lot to say on the subject of the Islamic State’s use of scripture. Sohaira Siddiqui: When reading materials released by ISIS or legal verdicts produced by their courts, ISIS relies upon various sources: sacred texts, namely the Quran and hadith, and the actions of the Prophet’s early companions and subsequent generations. These laws can be understood to either enhance the “dignity” of Muslims, to strike fear in the hearts and minds of their enemies, or to create a religiously ordered society. The use of scriptural sources and history is not only important for religiously legitimizing their actions, it also promotes their overall objectives. In other words, they subject scripture and history for their own political and religious motivations. Thus far, when Islamic scholars have assessed ISIS’s use of scripture, many have asserted that ISIS is literal and also cherry-picks from scripture to fulfill their desired objectives. While I agree, I would argue that ISIS ago engages with purpose based reasoning and thus often steps away from the literal meaning of texts when necessary. For example, in rationalizing the burning of the Jordanian pilot, ISIS first pointed to airstrikes carried out against Muslims, then referenced verse 126 in Sura al-Nahl which allows for commensurate retaliation, and finally ended with examples from the time of the Prophet and companions in which fire is used. In this case, an analogy is constructed between the effects of an airstrike and the deliberate burning of an individual. Here elements of purposive, not textual, reasoning are involved; that is striking fear into the minds of the enemies. To deliberately set alight an individual has only a tendentious link to the launch of missiles. Thus what appears to be a literal application of the right of commensurate punishment becomes more nuanced when analyzed in greater detail. Let us take another case which shows ISIS to go beyond the literal meaning of the text in order to suit their objectives. In part the notoriety that ISIS possesses is due to their propaganda videos and images which depict life within ISIS controlled areas. This depiction of human images, however, is contrary to a literalist reading of numerous prophetic hadith -- found in the canonical collection of Bukhari and Muslim -- which forbid the creation of pictures and the replication of the human image. In fact, many of the scholars which ISIS quote to support their actions vehemently prohibit the capturing of the human image. Their abandonment of explicit hadith demonstrates that they adopt a legal methodology which is scripturally-centric and literal, but flexible if literalism alone will circumvent their objectives. Combining reasoning from texts with purpose based reasoning is not something ISIS has newly invented. Classical jurists in the 11th century articulated that there are certain objectives of the Sharia, namely the preservation of life, religion, lineage, property and honor. While jurists were continuously engaged in deriving laws from the sources, the presence of these objectives functioned as a check and balance system which ensured that the laws they generated were in accordance with the objectives of the law as understood by God. These objectives were therefore derived from the Quran and sayings of the Prophet and were understood to represent divine intent with regards to the law. However, when ISIS is using purpose based reasoning, they are not concerned with what is the divine intent of the law is; rather they are concerned with creating laws which fulfill their own political desires. In this sense, what ISIS is engaged in resembles more religiously legitimated political reasoning than any attempt to holistically understand the texts or the overall objectives of the law.

Answer 1

According to Siddiqui, ISIS doesn’t justify its actions based on the religious texts rather they are concerned with creating laws which fulfill their own political desires for e.g.:- in rationalizing the burning of the Jordanian pilot, based on the quranic verses of chapter nahl and sayings of the prophet (pbuh) found in the canonical collection of bukhari and muslim which says to enhance the dignity of muslims by striking fear fear in the hearts and minds of their enemies or to create a a religiously ordered society but their actions goes against the ruling of Islam as a whole as their actions specifies they had gone beyond the literal meaning of the text (Quran and Ahadiths) in order to suit their objectives. for example their depiction of human images which is already forbidden in Islam.

According to Siddiqui, ISIS ‘s rulings and actions trangresses the objectives of the sharia outlined by 11th century jurists because the jurists then we’re continuously engaged in deriving laws as per the Quran and Prophetic sayings only as understood by God in order to maintain its divinity however ISIS is using their purpose based reasoning they aren’t concerned with the divine intent of the actual sharia laws rather they are concerned with creating laws which fulfills their political desires hence ISIS has nothing to do with Islam as a whole.

My opinion in the concern is “whosoever it may be if he’s a true Muslim he cannot abide a single ruling of the divine Islamic sharia and same goes to every religion or its sacred traditions. I highly recommend there should be an organisation like “UNO” who gets to decide ultimately what the actual interpretations of the divine laws and sacred text is trying to convey.