WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR MODERATE MUSLIMS TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST ISIS?

Graeme Wood is a contributing editor at The Atlantic, who has written a very in-depth, intelligent article entitled "What ISIS Really Wants."  I can't overemphasize, it IS a long read; however, you should take the time to read it all: you won't find better analysis anywhere.

Wood breaks his essay into five sections 1. Devotion, 2. Territory, 3. The Apocalypse, 4. The Fight and 5. Dissuasion, but I want to excerpt just a portion to focus on why its so hard for mainstream Muslims to speak out against ISIS.

In order to go there, we first need to establish a vocabulary. Here's a few terms we need to understand:

Apostasy: the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.  A traitor.  The punishment for apostasy is death, under Sharia law.

Takfir: In Islamic law, takfir or takfeer (Arabic: تكفير‎ takfīr) refers to the practice of excommunication, one Muslim declaring a non-Muslim or an apostate, an unbeliever or kafir (pl. kuffār).

Kuffar: Also spelled 'kafir' or 'kaffir', Kuffar is a highly derogatory Arabic term used to refer to non-Muslims. Separate laws govern Muslims and kuffars in an Islamic state with kuffars being viciously suppressed.

In a nutshell, Wood makes the case that ISIS ideology and actions are firmly based on the teaching of the Koran, albeit a medieval reading of it, and to deny that is to deny the Koran. Denying the Koran is to turn from the faith - apostasy.

Wood contends, "The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail..."

"Leaders of the Islamic State have taken emulation of Muhammad as strict duty, and have revived traditions that have been dormant for hundreds of years."

For example, Wood continues, "Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran [5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land] and the example of the Prophet." (Who owned slaves himself.)

Therein lies the rub.  In order to condemn the acts of ISIS, one has to contort oneself into somehow saying that what they're doing is bad, while still holding that when Mohammed did the same thing it was good.

Some Muslims or other religious leaders try to get around this with semantics, as Catholic Friar Dwight Longenecker (a somewhat unfortunate name for this topic) does when he says  "Does the Quran, the biography of Mohammed and Sharia law condone beheading? Does it justify this abominably cruel practice? I fear so, and I think this is why the jihadists and other Islamic extremists behead people... Do I think the Quran commands people to behead infidels, however?" 

Back to Wood again: "Many mainstream Muslim organizations [and Joe Biden and Kareem Abjul-Jabbar] have gone so far as to say the Islamic State is, in fact, un-Islamic. It is, of course, reassuring to know that the vast majority of Muslims have zero interest in replacing Hollywood movies with public executions as evening entertainment. But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.”

ISIS is happy to kill you in any number of horrific ways for apostasy.  In fact, they believe it is their duty.

To conclude, I've touched here on only one aspect of this - denying that ISIS's actions and ideology go against the Koran.  ISIS, however, takes this a lot farther:

"Denying the holiness of the Koran or the prophecies of Muhammad is straightforward apostasy. But Zarqawi and the state he spawned take the position that many other acts can remove a Muslim from Islam. These include, in certain cases, selling alcohol or drugs, wearing Western clothes or shaving one’s beard, voting in an election—even for a Muslim candidate—and being lax about calling other people apostates. Being a Shiite, as most Iraqi Arabs are, meets the standard as well, because the Islamic State regards Shiism as innovation, and to innovate on the Koran is to deny its initial perfection."

"You have to have standards. Somebody could claim to be a Muslim, but if he believes in homosexuality or drinking alcohol, then he is not a Muslim. There is no such thing as a nonpracticing vegetarian."  - Anjem Choudary  (In other words, you either follow Islam in every way, or you are not a Muslim)

As a side note, I have a PREDICTION:  We will soon see terrorist attacks on our food and water supplies.   Why?  Because that is what the 'prophet' Mohammed (plague be upon him) specifically called for.  Final quote from Wood's article: "Muhammad [orders followers] to leave well water and crops alone—unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away."

Now, if you haven't already done so, go and read the whole thing.  As Ace says, "No Seriously This Is the Most Important Article Published in the American Media in 10 Years."