This is something which begins to be discussed in Italian TV talk shows and on magazines. The geographical diffusion of ISIS political drawing is more and more similar to the diffusion of a certain kind of doctrine, almost religious, and this leaves room for the hypothesis that ISIS is a "fruit" of Islam, it can be the result of a schism. In this case President Obama would be technically still right saying that ISIS is not part of Islam, but in the sense of the traditional Islam. If something similar would happen in Christianity, we would talk about apostasy, heresy ... but not immediately. Let's remind that while Catholic terrorists in Northern Ireland were killing Protestant civilians and British soldiers ... there weren't all that concern to differentiate those Catholics from the Catholic traditional world. So, are we observing a schism in Islam?
This is the first time that I have been in the majority! Wait! I am the first voter, lol. I voted 'Yes: they have left traditional Islam'. Despite those that despise me for my Christianity and some truly fabricated ideas about my beliefs I am a live and let live kind of Christian. I am often asked why God does not punish the truly wicked in this life. The answer is if a group or individual is so evil, so bad that he is hated by most of the world but does not get pay back and even seems to be blessed dont worry.Many of the most evil men and groups sail through life, some getting rich some are leaders of nations etc but I think God is saving them for himself after death lol. All this leads us to ISIS. They are a perverted facet of Islam. Still they are more Muslim than say an AOG member* is a Christian. The Army of God is a Christian terrorist group that vehemently hates abortion to the point of advocating summary execution of MD's and the bombing of abortion mills. www.armyofgod.com. However unlike the beheading rMuslims who find precedent in the Koran for horrific atrocities such as beheading those that will not convert**, Christians in the AOG violate basic principles of the bible ie the teachings of Jesus. That is why I say "Still they (the beheading ISIS members) are more Muslim than say an AOG member* is a Christian". And that is also why I voted for the option above. AI do take full issue disagreeing with one statement above. Its this; "If something similar would happen in Christianity, we would talk about apostasy, heresy ... but not immediately." Are you serious? If a Christian group even the off the wall AOG marched out 20 Muslims and beheaded them with an accompanying U tube, you dont think there would be IMMEDIATE response from every christian from Hagae to the christian in the street? I would give 20 to 1 odds that there would be massive protests and worse especially if these atrocities were a series of events like the hundreds of attacks by rMuslims upon innocents. reva
ISIS follows Islam more closely than pretty much anyone else. The Quran (the so-called Islamic 'holy' book) is full of calls to murder infidels and mistreat women. The Quran was also written by Mohammed, a completely evil, monstrous paedophile... and ISIS are paedos too, by roping in young girls from around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad The problem is not ISIS, it is Islam. David Cameron is correct to label them a "death cult". God bless USA, Europe and of course the sole leading light of the Middle East, Israel, in the war on IslamoTerror by the Civilized World. >>>MOD EDIT RULE 9<<<
If it's a schism then it's a new one. But it would be good if it were. ISIL should be seen as what it is and dealt with both by the west and by Islamic countries.
There are some clues that something similar is happening, at least at government / establishment level I can observe a certain reaction against the diffusion of ISIS [Egyptian and Jordanian governments are fighting against ISIS]. On the other hand we could remark that the present Egyptian government [with its establishment] is far from the movement of the "Arab spring" which carried a different leadership at the government of the country. And, to say all, the Jordanian government too is part of what we could call the "ancient regime" of Islam.
I'm probably being too simplistic but Egypt and Jordan - and others (not Iraq or Iran) - could be secular governments in Islamic nations whereas ISIL is all about Islam, or it's Salafist interpretation. We're seeing the struggle between secularism and theocracy. So in that sense I don't see a schism so much as the struggle between two entirely separate concepts. The "Arab spring", I think, was just a few green shoots poking up through the still frosty ground. It was restricted to a couple of dictatorships that were surprisingly easy to overthrow. The thaw will only come when the Sauds are gone.
So we can make the hypothesis that Isis is something natural in the social / political evolution of Sunni Islam?
ISIS is a carbon copy manifestation of the teachings of the death cult. The problem is not ISIS, it is the evil doctrines contained within the Quran, which the ISIS scum are following to the letter. I can only think of one death cult worse than ISIS... Iran's Shia death cult.
How can it be a schism if they are able to quote the Quran? Seems to me the more devout they become the more violent they become. They are a religion looking to be a theocracy and it appears they are succeeding. I mean what better time to do this than now. The U.S. has the weakest President in our history.
Unless I miss my guess it's a heresy of a heresy. Schism is not quite right here to my knowledge, implying a break from an existing hierarchy but not necessarily any doctrinal or dogmatic variation. The breaking of Greek Orthodox from Roman Catholic in 1054 was a Schism, the Protestant Reformation were heresies, (TO THE CATHOLICS ONLY, to the Protestants they were REFORMING the true Church back to what it should be so the CATHOLICS were the heretics.) I THINK, but am not quite sure, that Sunni/Shia is a schism. I am pretty sure that most ISIS come from Salafi and/or Wahabi sect(s) (though it doesn't seem they must) and that Wahabi/Salafi are regarded as heretics by most Muslims. Comments from Islamophobes notwithstanding most precepts of ISIS are repugnant and disavowed by most modern Muslims, though it can be, like it is for many more "devout" Christians, a matter of degree
A schism, as I said, actually has no doctrinal/dogmatic variation from the original, and even a full blown heresy can still use the same Holy Book. Are you saying that Baptists and Lutherans, both heretical to each other, don't use the same Bible?
I wouldn't call them entirely different concepts. You have to keep in mind that not even Saudi Arabia and Iran regard themselves as formal theocracies. Most secular Islamic states are like Western states that had a state religion, such as England and the Anglicans. If Saudi ever thaws it will be the Sauds doing it. If they ever go they will be replaced by an even more fundamentalist regime
If you are counting religious sects as schisms then you already have your answer. The thread title is..is ISIS a schism of ISLAM not of Sunni or shiites. The answer is NO they are not. As I said they are able to quote the Quran and therefore aren't a schism of ISLAM.
[MENTION=65176]rangecontraction[/MENTION] & [MENTION=61379]AlphaOmega[/MENTION] These two posters are absolutely right. Anyone who doubts them need only consult the remarkably easy to read and understand website of Dr. Bill Warner the founder and President of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. There you will find hundreds of articles, newsletters, interviews, books for sale, PDF downloads, lists, interpretations in different languages, easy to understand and concise versions of the Koran, Sira and Hadith, guest columns, statistics, charts and more, on virtually every aspect of political Islam. Despite the wealth of information in various formats and particular subjects within the scope of the center's stated purpose one can visit the site ONCE, spend 5 minutes or so reading or watching a video and come away smart enough to be among the leaders in a thread discussing the heretofore confusing issues of Islam and Muslims and Jihad. Those who refuse to visit the site only make themselves look like silly dupes when they exchange ideas with those who have become better informed. Some people must enjoy being ignorant or being perceived as ignorant. Others are actually more concerned with using information as a tool to help combat the never ending and ever growing threat of Jihad and don't care about being perceived as smart. Whatever your reason, everyone can gain from visiting the site. The Center for the Study of Political Islam. Islam doesn't follow the Golden Rule like we do. And the Koran has nothing good planned for non Muslims.
seems the church has the same issues with pedophiles priests... btw, how old was Marry? I condemn all pedophiles, regardless of religion when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, was there a reason they covered up to stop the old man watching them romp around naked? .
Correct, a proper schism is a technical / institutional division, not doctrinal. In fact if we observe with attention to Anglican Church we can note that it's the most "pure" schism ever. The Anglican Church is substantially the Catholic Church in Great Britain which has renounced to the Pope [substituting him with the Crown]. That's a schism. But the Anglican Church is still Catholic, if you look well ...
I find curious that so far no one has chosen the political option. It seems that no one is giving credit to the "Caliph" as political leader [myself, I didn't choose that option], but can we be really sure that it's simply all about politics? [So that religion is simply a facade?].
You analogy is flawed. The Catholic IRA did not target Protestants and British soldiers because they were not Catholic, they were targeted because the IRA considered them to be an occupying force in their country. It was a political struggle. ISIS clearly targets Moslems who do not share their medieval fundamentalist interpretation of Islam; also Christians and Jews. It is a religious struggle.
Ah, this is a good point. They are not "liberating" occupied lands, but they are fighting to substitute existing establishments.
Actually if this Syria fails I won't cry for it ... Back to the OP, what makes it not easy to define a schism in the Sunnite Islam is the absence of a centralized hierarchical clergy. In traditional Christianity early schisms were evident since the beginning: a part of the Church denied to Rome the supreme authority on Christianity, it was a clear rejection of the centralized Christian clergy in the "Urbe". Here the matter is more complicated since figures like the Iman, the sheik ... are not embedded in an institutionalized hierarchy [everybody can guide the prayer if considered suitable to do that, there are not "sacred" individuals entitled to play that role like the "Priests" in the Catholic or Orthodox world, Protestants are a bit more "free" about this, anyway also in Protestant Church we can meet an institutionalized hierarchy as well].
This is an excellent post. You are so right about Islam. The problem is not ISIS, it is Islam. All ISIS do is follow Islam to the letter. Mohammed was a proven child molester and paedophile, which makes his father Allah complicit in paedophilia. All ISIS are doing is following the path of Mohamed and Allah.
It may be because ALL Islamic states are that way, they're essentially Islamic in the same sense that England was (and may still be technically) Anglican. Religion is largely a façade for politics in most of these states and vice versa, but since the religion and the politics have factions within factions and everything is a matter of degree the reality is far more complicated than it first appears. Sorta like the United States, yes?
With my historical attitude I tend to think that religion is a tool of politics, not the other way round ... Higher you go through the hierarchy of a religion and more you will meet politicians, not "blessed" individuals of faith [there was a famous monk who became Pope just to renounce not to vomit ... it was Celestino V]. And to say all, I do think that the Caliph, Al Baghdadi doesn't believe in God [whichever name you want to use to indicate G-d], he is a layer who is using religion to build his own political power [and why not the possibility to have many virgins as slaves already in this material life]. In a few words this "Calippo" [it's an Italian ice-cream] doesn't reserve respect, but just to be ridiculed on satirical magazines ...
