Have a listen again to what Barack Obama had to say on Wednesday in his address that outlined his strategy to deal with the threat that was originally "The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad", which came to be known as "Al Qaeda in Iraq", and more recently "ISIL", then "ISIS", and now the "Islamic State", its latest and likely final iteration:
White House transcript here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_...
"Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents. And the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim."
Think about the logic of his statement. Obvious question-begging aside, if no religion condones the killing of innocents, and Islam is a religion, and it is because Muslims have been killed by the Islamic State that it cannot be considered either religious or Islamic, then that surely equates one's innocence with being religious and Muslim while at the same time implying that being Muslim necessitates that one does not kill other Muslims. The next inference to be drawn is that Obama understands full well that, properly understood, Islamic scripture does condone the killing of non-Muslims (should it be "Allah's will"). The lack of a pause and apostrophe after his "And" openly invites this inference to be drawn. Thus, Obama's definition of who is and who is not a Muslim, and, more specifically, who is or is not an hypocrite (i.e., those whom devout Muslims deem the worst of 'unbelievers' and whom IS is at present targeting to be expunged before shifting its focus onto the lesser categories of 'unbelievers') is ostensively different to that which is held and being applied by IS. He also ostensibly does not condone IS'method of expunging unbelievers. But otherwise, it would seem by his actions and words that he is on the same page as them in terms of Islamic fundamentals. Nowhere in his quarter hour speech did he clearly say that it is wrong to kill non-Muslims, or, that one can be both non-Muslim and innocent. Note that his calling the beheadings of the two US journalists "barbaric" is not necessarily a moral judgment about their deaths, only about the methods employed.
What I would like to hear from Obama is an unequivocal proclamation that in Islam it is wrong for a Muslim to kill peaceful (i.e., non-physically aggressive) non-Muslims, and that Islam holds that one can be both non-Muslim and innocent, and, to quote the relevant verses of the Qur'an in their proper context to support these positions. Such a clarification would deal with my points above and make more clear Obama's actual position on and relation with Islam.
Now, to understand that the Islamic State is Islamic - that is, that IS is what it says it is - this requires that one understand and apply the meaning of the suffix "-ic", which means "of or pertaining to". And the Islamic State does pertain to Islam, at the very least in the sense of "relate, refer or be relevant to". An incontrovertible fact of grammar is that any person or group whose ideology is derived from Qur'anic scripture necessarily qualifies as Islamic. In order to be Islamic, one need not subscribe to or abide by any particular interpretation of Islam, just to an interpretation of Islam - any interpretation. So long as Qu'ranic scripture, however interpreted, is the source of an ideology, that ipso facto makes that ideology, and anyone who subscribes to it, 'Islamic'. By example of analogy, Christianity is Christian, not Jewish, but it is Judaic ... in heritage.
"And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way."
This latter statement is either a confession of the president's ignorance on the meaning of the word "state", or aims to deceive. Given that Obama obtained a law degree, the former would be just bizarre. The fact is that definitionally there is nothing that precludes a terror group from being a state. A state is any politically organized unit that exercises sovereign power over a geographic area, pure and simple. Statehood has nothing to do with whether a polity has "taken advantage" of anyone, nor with who does or does not recognize the unit's standing, nor what it's "vision" is. For so long as IS maintains a standing whereby it is able to exercise sovereign power over a defined geographic region, as it is doing at present, it necessarily qualifies as having statehood. If a state does not want to recognize another state's statehood, it is incumbent upon it to exercise it's own sovereign power, either individually or jointly with others, to demonstrate the fact.
The Islamic State is thus demonstrably both Islamic and a state - the latter up until the time it loses the geographical sovereignty it has acquired. It is of course of paramount importance that the people who reside in Iraq and Syria not recognize the terror-group as being their state, that is, if they want to it to no longer be one.
No doubt Obama's promise to the Turkish Parliament (i.e., to the descendants of the last Islamic caliphate) in 2009 where he said: "Let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam" has more than a little bearing on what his strategy is to deal with the likes of IS. If Obama and his administration honestly do not consider the Islamic State to be Islamic though, then why is there such consternation about and resistance to using the 'W' word, especially given the increasing gravity of the situation? Whatever the reason, all that seems 'clear' is that we are not meant to know what it is.
"O Prophet, urge the believers to battle." - Qur'an Surah 8:65
"Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy." - Qur'an Surah 4:101
"Do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior;" - Qur'an Surah 47:35
"So consume what you have taken of war booty [as being] lawful and good, and fear Allah." - Qur'an Surah 8:69
"... and fitnah is worse than killing." - Qur'an Surah 2:191
"Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted." - Qur'an Surah 9:111
(All Quranic quotes copied and pasted from www.quran.com)