nuclearjaeger said: I completely agree, and several authorities have come forward to say that the "Islamic State" is not representative of Islamic peoples or their practices. I'm confused on one front though- did ISIS officially change their name to IS, or was this a name given by western powers to purposely obscure terrorism and Islam?
I’m not saying that these people aren’t Muslims or that they don’t use Islamic sources to come about with justifications of these very violent acts that mar the beautiful tradition of Islam. Anyone can pervert or manipulate any piece of work or source for their own agendas. I’m not denying that these people are not Muslims or that they are not part of the global Muslim fabric. That’s not the point of my post.
However, that’s where I’m getting at, people shouldn’t see Muslims as a monolith or immediately see Islamic structures and systems as inherently evil because they have been misrepresented by these militias.
All I’m asking is for people to see Muslims with the same humanity and objective decency that we give everybody else. Words like Jihad, Islam, Shariah, Islamic state, or other terms shouldn’t be dirty or trigger terms in their own right, they have been utilized heavily to develop structures of entire civilizations and continue to influence the largest bodies of medicine, politics, and human development as a whole.
To answer your question, ISIS is a rough translation of their full name in Arabic but media outlets like to use the word Islamic state to redefine that very word into something evil, like they have with Jihad, Shariah, or Islam as a whole.
We can’t keep seeing Muslims as one group, that’s doing us a lot of harm in itself.