ISIS and Boko Haram are two of the world’s most notorious “radical Islamic groups.” You’ll rarely – if ever – hear about these groups without also seeing terms like Islam, Muslim, radical, jihad, Quran, extremism, and so on. ISIS and Boko Haram, we are told, represent “Islamic values” intertwined with a political dimension. New documents, however, show that “members of ISIS don’t know squat about Islam.”
The Associated Press has analyzed over 3,000 questionnaires filled out by ISIS recruits. It turns out that this “radical Islamic group” is full of “Muslims” who don’t know anything about Islam. Hareetz reports:
At the height of ISISs drive for foot soldiers in 2013 and 2014, typical followers included the group of Frenchman who went bar-hopping with the recruiter back home, the recent European convert who now hesitantly describes himself as gay, and two Britons who ordered “The Koran for Dummies” from Amazon to prepare for jihad in Syria.
The Associated Press’ findings actually are nothing new. In February 2015, French journalist Didier Francois sat down with Christiane Amanpour of CNN to discuss the 10 months he spent as an ISIS prisoner in Syria. Francois told Amanpour, “There was never really discussion about texts or – it was not a religious discussion. It was a political discussion.” Francois continued: “It was more hammering what they were believeing than teaching us about the Quran. Because it has nothing to do with the Quran. We didn’t even have the Quran.”
And how about Boko Haram? Bulama Modu, who the Nigerian army describes as the leading member of the “radical Islamic group,” can neither read the Quran or explain how Muslim prayers are performed, according to video footage of his interrogation seen by Anadolu Agency. “I don’t know how to read the Quran”, Modu admits in the footage, a comment that certainly throws into question his understanding of Islamic jurisprudence. He added: “I don’t know how to perform prayers either.”
Somehow, I am not surprised by any of these revelations.
26 thoughts on “Research Shows ISIS and Boko Haram Don’t Know Anything About Islam”
Reblogged this on Voice of Salam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This article saqys different …
“ISIS and Boko Haram, we are told, represent “Islamic values” intertwined with a political dimension. New documents, however, show that “members of ISIS don’t know squat about Islam.””
Uh, so what? That not all of them have a PhD in islamic studies like caliph Al-Baghdadi does not mean that their respective groups aren’t based on islamic principles.
“The Associated Press has analyzed over 3,000 questionnaires filled out by ISIS recruits. It turns out that this “radical Islamic group” is full of “Muslims” who don’t know anything about Islam.”
Again: that recruits don’t have a PhD in islamic studies does not mean that the groups aren’t based on islamic principles. Should we ignore all the islamic texts and example they quote to justify their actions just because someone who is applying to ISIS is not an expert on islam? That would be like saying kids can’t join a kids sports team because they don’t have a certain level on the sport – isn’t that what training is supposed to amend?
“In February 2015, French journalist Didier Francois sat down with Christiane Amanpour of CNN to discuss the 10 months he spent as an ISIS prisoner in Syria. Francois told Amanpour, “There was never really discussion about texts or – it was not a religious discussion. It was a political discussion.” Francois continued: “It was more hammering what they were believeing than teaching us about the Quran. Because it has nothing to do with the Quran. We didn’t even have the Quran.””
What’s this? A non-muslim prisoner discussed something other than the quran with its muslim captors? Hold the presses – clearly ISIS has nothing to do with islam!!!
“And how about Boko Haram? Bulama Modu, who the Nigerian army describes as the leading member of the “radical Islamic group,””
Oh, Bulama Modu is the “leading member” of Boko Haram? What does that make of Abu Musab al-Barnawi, who was recently appointed by ISIS to replace Abubakar Shekau (who, in turn, replaced Boko Haram founder, Mohammed Yusuf, after he died) on the grounds that Shekau was going against islamic doctrine because he killed muslims?
The newly appointed leader of the Boko Haram terrorist group, Abu Musab al-Barnawi, has chided Abubakar Shekau for reacting to his emergence as the new leader of the group, stating that he (Shekau) blew up his chances while he was leader.
Recall that following the announcement of a new leader by Islamic States (ISIS) terror group, Boko Haram’s ally, Shekau who was assumed dead broke his silence saying that he remained the group’s leader.
In a swift response, al-Barnawi released an audio tape in which he reiterated that Shekau had deviated from the path they had chosen and had been engaged in systematic killing of Boko Haram fighters.
He also accused Shekau of living a life of luxury, while women and children died of starvation.
According to him, Shekau starved the Boko Haram fighters of food, and that caused them to be defeated by the Nigerian armed forces.
Al-Barnawi said Shekau had violated Islamic doctrines by killing fellow Muslims, instead of killing the Christians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can you even fathom the vast distance between “don’t know anything” and PhD?
Oh, and you forgot the 3,000 other ISISist respondents that didn’t know anything about it, either. I look forward to your detailed analysis of each of those.
The entire last half of your minimally coherent rant doesn’t even attempt to hide that you’re trying to dodge the central point that very few “Islamic” terrorists have even a passing familiarity with Islam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I hear you saying is that you do not understand the vast distance between “don’t know anything” and PhD. Let me help you, with a picture:
First star = “Don’t know anything”
Second star = “Basic knowledge”
Third star = “PhD”
Drawing may not be to scale.
You just seem to think that if a person can name a handful of facets of Islam that they are an instant PhD candidate, which is a fault with you, not with the source. By your standards, I must be a highly respected and world-renowned expert on several religions. Try taking a PhD test on any subject with that level of knowledge and let us all know how that goes for you.
“Having basic knowledge on a subject is NOT not knowing anything about said subject, wouldn’t you say?”
I would say that reductionist hyperliteralism is an endearing trait in a four year old but an embarrassing trait in an adult. I would also say that those quoted words are in the headline, not in the study and therefore the work itself stands independently. Good job proving that headlines tend toward sensationalism, though. I’m sure a lot of people will be glad to learn that.
The study in this article is sufficient citation. The “some” that you reference is 3,000. Do you have greater than 3,000 exhibits of counter-evidence? If not, then you are the one that needs to start showing some citations.
“Burden of proof” is a legal concept, not a logical one. We are not in a court room. You have no standing to place the burden of anything upon anyone. If you want me to believe that this study is wrong, then you can either attempt to prove that or you can walk away. No “burden” is on either of us to do anything. But, you have repeatedly asserted that this study is false without evidence to support that assertion, making it plain that you don’t believe in the rules that you attempt to set for others. Before you start whining about your personal failures including inability to prove a negative, then I should remind you that if the inverse of the study were true, it could be just as easily demonstrated. Show me that evidence, or cite someone that has, and then you will have sufficient standing to say that this study is false. All you have shown so far is your personal incredulity and a non sequitur, neither of which I could sell for $2.50 if I threw in a $5 bill.
When I was actively studying terrorism (in a course at an accredited institution of higher learning lead by a person with a PhD in the subject using material written by other people with PhDs on the subject), we read through several similar studies conducted on captured actors of groups such as Hezbollah sympathizers and Iraqi insurgents. Those studies concluded the same thing about those groups and they all point to one thing: only a very small percentage of the members of the most well-known “religious” terrorist groups have more than basic knowledge of the religion painted on their flyers. Many Afghans recruited by the Taliban hadn’t even heard of Islam. No, I don’t have the list of studies because I didn’t care enough to hold onto it once I passed the courses. No, the fact that I can’t personally remember enough of those studies to cite them properly does not invalidate their existence any more than your inability to remember how to tie your shoes means that shoes have never been tied. This study is quite a bit larger, and despite statistics being yet another topic that you utterly fail to comprehend, a sample of 3,000 out of a target group of a few hundred thousand is of exceedingly high quality. I do not need to provide further citations because this is more than enough to satisfy anyone that has even basic knowledge of how social science studies operate.
I realize that I’m not all the way through your drivel yet but I’m going to stop with only one other statement because you struggle mightily to work with more than a few concepts at a time: just because a person can recite a couple of points from a brochure does not make them a subject-matter expert. This is a truism. Once you grasp that, we can then work on another of your data-processing difficulties.
You know that they aren’t in English, don’t you? And to what end? You can’t even accept that when I or the original author (as well as the authors of a stack of similar reports on this study) say, “know nothing” that we really mean, “don’t know enough to be taken seriously on the subject” or that a person who can recite a couple of names doesn’t qualify for a doctorate, so how in the world am I going to be expected to follow what you’ll allow for classification as “basic”, “intermediate”, and “advanced”? Right now, you’ve got me thinking of all the times that I told someone, “I don’t know anything about that” when, by your standards, I should have a big stack of doctorates right now because I at least knew enough to say that I didn’t know anything about it.
“Burden of proof” is a legal concept. Period. “Burden of proof” as you are using it is nothing but an appeal to false authority/appeal to omniscience. One person’s ability or inability to prove something has no bearing on its truth, nor does anything grant you the power to demand it of that person or any other — unless, of course, you are in a courtroom being charged with a crime. I do now wish that I’d held on to my course material or still had a login to ASE or EBSCO just for the satisfaction of sending you back to jerking off to your daddy’s yearbook, but this cookie just isn’t crumbling that way. It doesn’t mean that the studies don’t exist, nor that you yourself couldn’t freely enroll in the same sort of course and be presented with the same material. I suppose if you were really up to a serious challenge, you could try Googling for them. This article that you’ve spent your afternoon critiquing is just one of dozens of leads that all trail back to the same source. Anyway, you are choosing to ignore the available body of evidence, and there is no “burden” on me to do a single thing about that.
You really should not even begin to attempt to lecture me on language theory. The fact that you demand that everyone else engage in precise literalism while you loosely equate being able to answer a few basic questions to a post-graduate thesis defense is a permanent disqualifier. Your inability to hold yourself to the same rules and standards that you demand of everyone else precludes any possibility of engaging in anything more serious than a juvenile verbal sparring match with you.
““Burden of proof” as you are using it is nothing but an appeal to false authority/appeal to omniscience.”
No, it isn’t. You made a claim, ergo you have the obligation to provide warrant for it. Trying to argue that your claim is true because it has not yet been proved false, like you’re trying to do, is an argument from ignorance, is am informal logical fallacy.
Again: you claimed that “very few “Islamic” terrorists have even a passing familiarity with Islam”. Prove it – unless, of course, you prefer to spend your time crafting strawmen and ascribing them to me.
“The fact that you demand that everyone else engage in precise literalism”
Which I didn’t.
“while you loosely equate being able to answer a few basic questions to a post-graduate thesis defense”
Another thing I didn’t do. Like I said, reading comprehension is not your forte. Imagination, on the other hand…
“Your inability to hold yourself to the same rules and standards that you demand of everyone else”
Your lack of self-awareness is staggering. You demand evidence from me to prove something I never stated, and yet you refuse to provide evidence to prove something you stated. Again: you claimed that “very few “Islamic” terrorists have even a passing familiarity with Islam”. Prove it – unless, of course, you prefer to spend your time crafting strawmen and ascribing them to me.
They dont know about islam.
They are not muslims they just pretend to be muslims they decieve others through there wrong believe. We are Muslims but not terrorists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just said sir they r nt muslims thats the fact☺
Im not trying to declare anybody kafir just saying that terrorism attorcity and cruelty does not represent islam.
Terrorists have no religion
sir wat r u trying to say
i don’t know the specific names of terrorists but yeah i agree tht they are not muslims
Why are most terrorists in the world Islamic, if Islam (forced submission to ‘allah’) has nothing to do with it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
sir they r first of all they are not muslims and in other words they are
called as fitna. ISlam does not force to submit to Allah thats the true fact
I belive you wont considerd hassan nasrallah as a terrorist when orthodox christians support him and other people you mentioned also dosent represent islam heck i assure you still belive in holacaust that was created by a devout catholic german
And you mr ECAW
Read a quran and understand it dont just read it and interpret it you should know that verse was used during the persecution of muslims.
Please tell me more give this examples that you learned from a dumbass mainstream media
Reblogged this on Sonora del Norte Press.
Isis n buko haram r not muslim . In Islam ur not allowed to take a life n ur not allowed to kidnap n rape . This is more to do with politics n power not Islam .
PROHIBIT KILLING WITH UNJUST:
3:21. Verily! Those who disbelieve in the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah and kill the Prophets without right, and kill those men who order just dealings, announce to them a painful torment.
5: 32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!.
6: 151. Say (O Muhammad SAW): “Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited you from: Join not anything in worship with Him; be good and dutiful to your parents; kill not your children because of poverty – We provide sustenance for you and for them; come not near to Al-Fawâhish (shameful sins, illegal sexual intercourse, etc.) whether committed openly or secretly, and kill not anyone whom Allâh has forbidden, except for a just cause (according to Islâmic law). This He has commanded you that you may understand.
Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 371
Yazid al-Faqir said: This view of the Khwarij (i. e. those who commit major sins and would be eternally doomed to Hell)
Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 159 ,160
Ubaidullah b. Abu Bakr said: I heard Anas b. Malik saying: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) talked about the major sins, or he was asked about the major sins. Upon this he observed: Associating anyone with Allah, killing of a person, disobedience to parents. He (the Holy Prophet further) said: Should I not inform you about the gravest of the major sins, and (in this connection) observed: False utterance or false testimony. Shu’ba said. It was most probably” false testimony”.
17: 33. And do not kill anyone which Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause. And whoever is killed (intentionally with hostility and oppression and not by mistake), We have given his heir the authority [(to demand Qisâs, Law of Equality in punishment or to forgive, or to take Diya (blood money)]. But let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life (i.e he should not kill except the killer only). Verily, he is helped (by the Islamic law).
25: 68. And those who invoke not any other ilâh (god) along with Allah, nor kill such life as Allah has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse and whoever does this shall receive the punishment.
49: 6. O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done.
Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 89 :: Hadith 320
Not to join anything in worship along with Allah, (2) Not to steal, (3) Not to commit illegal sexual intercourse, (4) Not to kill your children, (5) Not to accuse an innocent person (to spread such an accusation among people), (6) Not to be disobedient (when ordered) to do good deeds.
Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 58 :: Hadith 233
Narrated ‘Ubada bin As Samit:
I was one of the Naqibs who gave the (‘Aqaba) Pledge of Allegiance to Allah’s Apostle . We gave the pledge of allegiance to him that we would not worship anything other than Allah, would not steal, would not commit illegal sexual intercourse, would not kill a person whose killing Allah has made illegal except rightfully, would not rob each other, and we would not be promised Paradise if we did the above sins, then if we committed one of the above sins, Allah will give His Judgment concerning it.
Muslim :: Book 7 : Hadith 3142
Abu Huraira, (Allah be pleased with him) reported. When Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, granted Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) victory over Mecca, he stood before people and praised and extolled Allah and then said:…………it (this territory) was not violable to anyone before me and it was made violable to me for an hour of a day, and it shall not be violable to anyone after me. So neither molest the game, nor weed out thorns from it. And it is not lawful for anyone to pick up a thing dropped but one who makes public announcement of it. And it a relative of anyone is killed he is entitled to opt for one of two things. Either he should be paid blood-money or he can take life as (a just retribution).
Muslim :: Book 17 : Hadith 4238
Ubida b. as-Samit repnrted: I was one of those headmen who swore allegiance to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) that we will not associate anything with Allah, and will not commit adultery, and will not steal, and will not kill any soul which Allah has forbidden, but with justice nor plunder, nor disobey (Allah and His Apostle), then Paradise (will be the reward) in case we do these (acts) ; and if we commit any outrage(bad, violence) (and that goes unpunished in the world), it is Allah Who would decide about it. Ibn Rumh said: Its judgment lies with Allah.
Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 161
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: Avoid the seven noxious things. It was said (by the hearers): What are they, Messenger of Allah? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Associating anything with Allah, magic, killing of one whom God has declared inviolate without a just cause, consuming the property of an orphan, and consuming of usury(intrest), turning back when the army advances(cowardness), and slandering(lie) chaste women who are believers, but unwary.
Bukhari :: Book 6 :: Volume 60 :: Hadith 134
…………… “I do not know that killing a person is lawful in Islam except in three cases: a married person committing illegal sexual intercourse, >>>one who has murdered somebody unlawfully<<>>>>A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) <<<<<<<<(2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle, and deserted Islam and became an apostate."
Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 83 :: Hadith 6
The Prophet said, "No human being is killed unjustly, but a part of responsibility for the crime is laid on the first son of Adam who invented the tradition of killing (murdering) on the earth. (It is said that he was Qabil).
Muslim :: Book 16 : Hadith 4156
'Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) having said: No person who is killed unjustly, but the share of (this offence of his also) falls upon the first son of Adam, for he was the first to introduce killing.
Dawud :: Book 39 : Hadith 4487
……..I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: It is not lawful to kill a man who is a Muslim except for one of the three reasons: Kufr (disbelief) after accepting Islam, fornication after marriage, or wrongfully killing someone, for which he may be killed. ……………………
Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 83 :: Hadith 21
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet said, "The most hated persons to Allah are three: (1) A person who deviates from the right conduct, i.e., an evil doer, in the Haram (sanctuaries of Mecca and Medina); (2) a person who seeks that the traditions of the Pre-lslamic Period of Ignorance, should remain in Islam (3) and a person who seeks to shed somebody's blood without any right."
Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 83 :: Hadith 3
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
One of the evil deeds with bad consequence from which there is no escape for the one who is involved in it is to kill someone unlawfully.
Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 78 :: Hadith 667
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:
The Prophet said, "The biggest sins are: To join others in worship with Allah; to be undutiful to one's parents; to kill somebody unlawfully; and to take an oath Al-Ghamus.
Dawud :: Book 35 : Hadith 4247
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
AbdurRahman ibn Samurah said: I was holding the hand of Ibn Umar on one of the ways of Medina. He suddenly came to a hanging head. He said: Unhappy is the one who killed him. When he proceeded, he said: I do not consider him but unfortunate. I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: If anyone goes to a man of my community in order to kill him, he should say in this way, the one who kills will go to Hell and the one who is killed will go to Paradise.
No coiplamnts on this end, simply a good piece.