Asking the Right Questions about ISIS: Between Politics and Ideology
Asking the Right Questions about ISIS: Between Politics and Ideology
Hisham A. Hellyer
The discussion around whether or not the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) is Islamic began as soon as the group entered onto the world stage. It throws up a number of queries for policy makers in the United States, Europe, and the Arab world, and the policy prescriptions will differ depending on how we answer the question of ‘how Islamic is ISIS.’ Or perhaps we have been asking the wrong questions.
A plethora of articles examine this question, including the now infamous Atlantic article by Graeme Wood, investigations by Jennifer Ruth in Vox, pieces by Muslim community figures like Mohamed Ghilan, and discussions in Foreign Affairs by Nathan Brown and myself. But as the debates continue, it seems clear that the analytical frames of discussion have yet to be adequately established. It ought not to be difficult to break down the issue of extremist radicalization in a more regimented fashion – but for years, the discussion has lacked this type of basic framing.
Social and Economic Factors
As policy makers proceed to continue discussions on ISIS, there is a particular frame that ought to be employed, by answering the following queries:
1. Is there something we can describe as a single radicalization process?
2. What are the factors that allow people to become more sociologically vulnerable to extremist radicalization?
3. How can we tackle those factors?
In addressing the above, the following applies:
1. There is no such thing as a ‘radicalization process’—rather, there are many processes. The reasons why a Syrian whose family has been attacked by Bashar al-Assad’s barrel bombs might radicalize differ from those for a Malaysian in southeast Asia who has travelled to Syria to join ISIS. The paths of radicalization are particular to the social and political context for each individual.
2. The factors will not only differ from place to place, but also from person to person in the same place. For example, many Syrians have suffered the brutality of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, but only a minority of them joined groups like ISIS or the Nusra Front. Scores of Muslims in the UK have suffered from anti-Muslim bigotry and racism, but radical groups have only recruited a precious few – less than 1 percent of Muslim Britons.
CIRSD Co-Hosts Horizons Discussion on the Future of Warfare at Cambridge University
On July 15th, the Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development (CIRSD), in cooperation with the Centre for Geopolitics of Cambridge University, co-hosted a Horizons Discussion entitled “The Future of Warfare.”
Read more
Power Projection in the Digital Age
When people think of geopolitical conflict, they often envision a war room with a map spread across the table—military generals and political leaders maneuvering plastic figurines in strategic formations, reminiscent of the board game Risk.
Read more
Horizons Hosts James Dorsey for a Discussion on Middle East Escalation
The Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development (CIRSD) hosted an award-winning journalist and scholar Dr. James M. Dorsey for a special Horizons Discussion on June 23rd, 2025. In conversation with Horizons Managing Editor Stefan Antić, Dorsey unpacked the lightning-fast escalation between Israel and Iran, the Trump administration’s divided response, and the wider stakes for regional and great-power politics.
Read more
Vuk Jeremić at St. Petersburg Economic Forum: “We Are Living in a Time of Grave Geopolitical Instability”
St. Petersburg, June 2025 – Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on the high-level panel “Eco-Rethinking of the Global Financial System,” Vuk Jeremić, President of the Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development (CIRSD), delivered a stark warning about the risks posed by escalating global tensions to any serious attempt at international financial system reform.
Read more