Author Graeme Wood comes under attack for his recent article in The Atlantic, which argued that ISIS is “more than a collection of psychopaths,” but a group with a clear set of [Islamic] beliefs.

In a new article in The Atlantic, Caner K. Dagli takes issue with Wood’s implication that Muslims who reject ISIS as un-Islamic are being “hypocritical or naive,” and that ISIS follow the texts of Islam as faithfully and seriously as anyone.

Dagli argues that ISIS justifies its actions by “cherry picking” from the Qur’an or the hadith (further texts about the life of the Prophet Muhammad), and that it makes no effort to fully understand the “complex and nuanced” texts.

Dagli concludes that articles like Wood’s put Muslims in an impossible situation.

“In my experience,” he says, “many Muslims are upset by articles like this not because their feelings are hurt, but because such arguments fill them with dread. They worry about what might happen to a religious or ethnic group that policymakers or the public believe to be intrinsically and uniquely dangerous.

“Muslims are presented with a brutal logic in which the only way to truly disassociate from ISIS and escape suspicion is to renounce Islam altogether.”