把伊斯兰教和恐怖联系起来:“给巴格达迪的公开信”以及以伊斯兰教为由谴责ISIS的陷阱

Manfred Sing
{"title":"把伊斯兰教和恐怖联系起来:“给巴格达迪的公开信”以及以伊斯兰教为由谴责ISIS的陷阱","authors":"Manfred Sing","doi":"10.1080/20566093.2016.1222735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract When Muslim individuals or groups perpetrate acts of violence, Muslim scholars are routinely required to condemn the ‘misuse’ of Quranic verses, and scholars of Islamic studies have to ‘explain’ the distant relation between classical jihad and modern terrorism. Most critics of an organization like the ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS) refute a direct link between its violence and Islam. However, they paradoxically take this link seriously enough to discuss it in detail or discard it entirely, by attributing it to an ‘Islamophobic’ perception of Islam. As misuse is still a kind of use and distance a kind of closeness, these experts risk reconstructing the connection that most of them wish to undermine because their criticism, by aiming at ISIS or ‘Islamophobia,’ still conjures up an Islamic imaginary. The article draws attention to the pitfalls in talking about so-called ‘Islamic terrorism’ and sheds a light on the under-researched politics of condemnation, in which Muslims are routinely called upon to engage. A case in point is the ‘Open Letter to al-Baghdadi,’ published by 126 religious scholars in 2014, which condemned ISIS on religious grounds. The author argues that such a condemnation contributes to an asymmetrical perception of Islam and an ideological understanding of terrorism. It reiterates truncated understandings about the root causes of political violence, while failing to address the thorny issue surrounding legitimate forms of violence. The main problem bedeviling the critics of Islamically justified terrorism is the ambiguous nature of a terror organization like ISIS, whose communication strategy forcefully targets Muslim as well as non-Muslim audiences and their attempts to vindicate or blame Islam.","PeriodicalId":252085,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Religious and Political Practice","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dis/connecting Islam and terror: the ‘Open Letter to Al-Baghdadi’ and the pitfalls of condemning ISIS on Islamic grounds\",\"authors\":\"Manfred Sing\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20566093.2016.1222735\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract When Muslim individuals or groups perpetrate acts of violence, Muslim scholars are routinely required to condemn the ‘misuse’ of Quranic verses, and scholars of Islamic studies have to ‘explain’ the distant relation between classical jihad and modern terrorism. Most critics of an organization like the ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS) refute a direct link between its violence and Islam. However, they paradoxically take this link seriously enough to discuss it in detail or discard it entirely, by attributing it to an ‘Islamophobic’ perception of Islam. As misuse is still a kind of use and distance a kind of closeness, these experts risk reconstructing the connection that most of them wish to undermine because their criticism, by aiming at ISIS or ‘Islamophobia,’ still conjures up an Islamic imaginary. The article draws attention to the pitfalls in talking about so-called ‘Islamic terrorism’ and sheds a light on the under-researched politics of condemnation, in which Muslims are routinely called upon to engage. A case in point is the ‘Open Letter to al-Baghdadi,’ published by 126 religious scholars in 2014, which condemned ISIS on religious grounds. The author argues that such a condemnation contributes to an asymmetrical perception of Islam and an ideological understanding of terrorism. It reiterates truncated understandings about the root causes of political violence, while failing to address the thorny issue surrounding legitimate forms of violence. The main problem bedeviling the critics of Islamically justified terrorism is the ambiguous nature of a terror organization like ISIS, whose communication strategy forcefully targets Muslim as well as non-Muslim audiences and their attempts to vindicate or blame Islam.\",\"PeriodicalId\":252085,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Religious and Political Practice\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Religious and Political Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20566093.2016.1222735\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Religious and Political Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20566093.2016.1222735","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

当穆斯林个人或团体实施暴力行为时,穆斯林学者通常被要求谴责“滥用”古兰经经文,伊斯兰研究学者必须“解释”古典圣战与现代恐怖主义之间的遥远关系。大多数对“伊斯兰国”(ISIS)这样的组织持批评态度的人都驳斥了其暴力与伊斯兰教之间的直接联系。然而,矛盾的是,他们足够认真地对待这种联系,以至于详细讨论它,或者完全抛弃它,将其归因于对伊斯兰教的“伊斯兰恐惧症”看法。由于误用仍然是一种使用,距离仍然是一种亲近,这些专家冒着重建联系的风险,他们中的大多数人都希望破坏这种联系,因为他们针对ISIS或“伊斯兰恐惧症”的批评,仍然让人想起伊斯兰的想象。这篇文章引起了人们对谈论所谓的“伊斯兰恐怖主义”的陷阱的注意,并揭示了对谴责政治的研究不足,穆斯林经常被呼吁参与其中。2014年由126名宗教学者发表的《致巴格达迪的公开信》就是一个很好的例子,该公开信以宗教为由谴责了ISIS。作者认为,这种谴责助长了对伊斯兰教的不对称认识和对恐怖主义的意识形态理解。它重申了对政治暴力根源的片面理解,同时未能解决围绕合法形式暴力的棘手问题。对伊斯兰主义恐怖主义的批评者来说,困扰他们的主要问题是,像ISIS这样的恐怖组织,其传播策略既针对穆斯林受众,也针对非穆斯林受众,他们试图为伊斯兰教辩护或指责伊斯兰教。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dis/connecting Islam and terror: the ‘Open Letter to Al-Baghdadi’ and the pitfalls of condemning ISIS on Islamic grounds
Abstract When Muslim individuals or groups perpetrate acts of violence, Muslim scholars are routinely required to condemn the ‘misuse’ of Quranic verses, and scholars of Islamic studies have to ‘explain’ the distant relation between classical jihad and modern terrorism. Most critics of an organization like the ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS) refute a direct link between its violence and Islam. However, they paradoxically take this link seriously enough to discuss it in detail or discard it entirely, by attributing it to an ‘Islamophobic’ perception of Islam. As misuse is still a kind of use and distance a kind of closeness, these experts risk reconstructing the connection that most of them wish to undermine because their criticism, by aiming at ISIS or ‘Islamophobia,’ still conjures up an Islamic imaginary. The article draws attention to the pitfalls in talking about so-called ‘Islamic terrorism’ and sheds a light on the under-researched politics of condemnation, in which Muslims are routinely called upon to engage. A case in point is the ‘Open Letter to al-Baghdadi,’ published by 126 religious scholars in 2014, which condemned ISIS on religious grounds. The author argues that such a condemnation contributes to an asymmetrical perception of Islam and an ideological understanding of terrorism. It reiterates truncated understandings about the root causes of political violence, while failing to address the thorny issue surrounding legitimate forms of violence. The main problem bedeviling the critics of Islamically justified terrorism is the ambiguous nature of a terror organization like ISIS, whose communication strategy forcefully targets Muslim as well as non-Muslim audiences and their attempts to vindicate or blame Islam.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信