Why We Need Words Like ‘Islamist’
Is the problem Islam or Islamism? Muslims or Islamists?
These and related questions regularly foster debate (see the exchange between Robert Spencer and Andrew McCarthy for a recent example). The greatest obstacle on the road to consensus is what such words imply; namely, that Islamism and Islamists are “bad,” and Islam and Muslims are good (or simply neutral).
Some observations in this regard:
Islamism is a distinct phenomenon and, to an extent, different from historic Islam. The staunch literalness of today’s Islamists is so artificial and anachronistic that, if only in this way, it contradicts the practices of medieval Muslims, which often came natural and better fit their historical context.
More to the point, for all their talk that they are out to enact the literal example of the early Muslims, today’s Islamists often permit and forbid things that their forbears did not, simply because, like it or not, they are influenced by Westernization. As Daniel Pipes observes:
Whereas traditional Islam’s sacred law is a personal law, a law a Muslim must follow wherever he is, Islamism tries to apply a Western-style geographic law that depends on where one lives. Take the case of Sudan, where traditionally a Christian was perfectly entitled to drink alcohol, for he is a Christian, and Islamic law applies only to Muslims. But the current regime has banned alcohol for every Sudanese. It assumes Islamic law is territorial because that is the way a Western society is run.
That said, there is no denying that Islam’s sacred law, Sharia — the backbone of mainstream Islam — is intrinsically problematic. One example: hostility for Muslim apostates — from ostracizing them to executing them — is simply a part of the religion of Islam, historically and doctrinally. The same can be said about the duty of offensive jihad and the subjugation of religious minorities and females.
Accordingly, while there is room for the word Islamism — in that it is a distinct phenomenon — that does not mean Islam proper is trouble-free. In fact, sometimes Islam’s traditional teachings are more problematic than Islamist teachings. For instance, during the “Arab spring,” many traditional Muslim sheikhs correctly pointed out that Sharia commands Muslims to obey their leader, even if he is unjust and tyrannical, as long as he is a Muslim, while Westernized Islamists were making the “humanitarian argument” against tyrants, one that had little grounding in Sharia.
At this point, one might argue that use of words like “Islamist,” while valid, are ultimately academic and have the potential further to confuse the layman. However, what is often missed in this debate is the true significance of such words: they satisfy a linguistic need — the need to differentiate and be precise — without which meaningful talk becomes next to impossible.
Consider: even the severest critic of Islam will concede that not all who are labeled “Muslim” — well over a billion people — are “the enemy.” Well, then, how shall we differentiate them in speech? What words shall we use?
One might insist that those whom we call “Islamists” should be called “Muslims,” while the majority whom we call “Muslims” — and which often indicate “moderate Muslims” — should not even be factored in the equation: after all, if they are not upholders of Sharia, then they are not practicing “true Islam” and do not count as Muslims.
Whatever the merits of this definition, by contradicting the ingrained and widespread usage of the word “Muslim,” it is impractical and counterproductive.
Using uber-PC words like “islamist” and “islamism” rather than muslim and islam is a bondage of the mind and destructive to the logical faculty. It is in clear fact a blindness. The problem is muslims and islam, not imaginary constructs, which are fine for children but not for adults.
Hark back to the way we thought about things back when we wanted to win a war — 1941-1945. Did we hear calls to arms to defeat hard-core members of the Nazi party? Or a small cabal of Japanese militarists influencing the Emperor? I don’t think so. Like fish in the sea, ‘Islamists’ are swimming in a sea of supportive-or-neutral Mohammedans. And the history of Mohammedanism is unaltered from the 7th Century until today. Submit when you have to, and wage ruthless jihad the minute you get an opening. Mohammedanism has shown no ability to live peacefully among infidels when they had any power. Nowhere; no time. After 1,300 years of triumphalism, perhaps it’s time to see that Mohammedanism is our implacable enemy. If we’re going to resist, then we will have to seek not only military victory, but follw that with a program of de-Muslimification, just as we treated the Nazis in Germany.
GMTA! I’ve been saying this for years. Only very recently have many other people in the blogosphere come around to that opinion. Military victory and de-Muslimification – sounds like a plan! First of all, we have to get the Muslim moles out of the White House, the State Department, the Senate and Congress, and so on and so forth.
See: Ex-Muslim Bosch Fawstin’s take on the “moderate Muslim” issue
i totally agree.
while i’ve found myself agreeing with everything else i’ve read or heard by raymond ibrahim and admire his scholarship, on this topic i disagree with the euphemistic use of this newly made up word “islamist.” while not as misleading as chechyan rebels, somali pirates, or asian youths, it nonetheless adds a layer of confusion (and the type of deception which would make a muslim proud) which should not exist nor be encouraged to exist.
Try reading the article again. Sloooowly. Caaaaarefully. And you’ll be fine.
I’m seeing a trend here: anyone who disagrees with the premise and argument of the article simply did not understand it, perhaps due to negligence while reading it. How about this: we DO understand the premise and the argument in favor of it. We disagree. The premise is that we need terms like “islamist” for clarity. Those of us who disagree understand this concept, but do not AGREE with it. We think terms like “islamist” have, and were designed to have, the opposite effect.
Read THAT again, slowly.
“However, what is often missed in this debate is the true significance of such words: they satisfy a linguistic need — the need to differentiate and be precise — without which meaningful talk becomes next to impossible.”
No, such pretend words are a beclouding and represents a need to deny reality. They are a sarcasm, a burlesque and no serious person would use them.
This comment is as baseless, in my opinion. The language has always been fluid and new words apply to new and subtle changes to meanings all the time. If this is not true, then how did language ever begin? It would be nice, for a while, if linguistic rules could be set in stone, but soon the restrictions on our language would render our language useless.
“These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” – Turkish PM Erdogan
Good God! does anyone on this board even know how to read?
So many of the comments here attack a position the author never supports – that Islam is good, Islamism bad (he even goes so far as to say that Islam itself is worse than Islamism).
His point is that by always insisting on using the word ‘Muslim,’ we fall into pit-traps. He gave several good examples, which I paste below:
Likewise, insisting on always using “Muslim” instead of “Islamist” can actually backfire by concealing the threat. Consider this recent news headline: “Egypt’s Islamists secure 75 percent of parliament.” Most informed readers would gather from this that Egypt is taking a turn for the worst. But what a redundant headline it would be had it simply read “Egypt’s Muslims secure 75 percent of parliament.” Exactly who else is supposed to dominate the parliament of a Muslim-majority nation if not Muslims?
Same with these reports: “U.S. official meets with Egypt’s Islamists” and “Islamist Named Speaker of Egypt House.” Many readers will take from these titles that an American official is meeting with the “bad guys,” one of whom has become house-speaker. Think of how meaningless these headlines would be if they had simply read “U.S. official meets with Egypt’s Muslims” and “Muslim Named Speaker of Egypt House.” In a country that is 90% Muslim, what is so remarkable about an official meeting with Muslims, or a Muslim being named speaker?
Is it not better, then, to utilize the accepted terms — “Islamist,” “Muslim radical,” “Islamic supremacist,” “Islamic fundamentalist,” anything other than the generic “Muslim” — simply to be understood, at least in certain contexts? The question is not how well the actions of such Muslims correspond with “true” Islam — as mentioned, that is an entirely different question, to be addressed on its own terms — but rather how we can intelligibly and practically talk about them.
He’s absolutely right. Do you still insist that the word ‘Muslim’ always appear instead of ‘Islamist’? If so, you create meaningless headlines, like the author shows, and instead of helping, you make it harder for people to understand the threat.
“what a redundant headline it would be had it simply read “Egypt’s Muslims secure 75 percent of parliament.”
“Do you still insist that the word ‘Muslim’ always appear instead of ‘Islamist’?”
Arguments like this only work if there is really only this one alternative left. Since this is not true, it fails. The word Muslim can be further qualified, eg.: “Muslim terrorists and their supporters….” or “Muslim terrorist groups and those who support them…” or “Jihadi terrorists…” etc. etc. Read my post @44 for further discussion on this. Words like “islamist”, designed to deceive, not only have no value, but a negative one.
Oh whatever will you do if “islamism” catches on and most people use it when referring to Islam, and “islamist” catches on and most people use it when referring to muslims? Will you just come up with another set of words? You best have some backups if you are going to engage in such silliness.
Feral,
You should probably read the article first, though it may be too subtle for you. Note the headline examples the author gives. Using ‘Muslim’ instead of ‘Islamist’ in those examples is so beyond meaningless, and like he says, actually downplays the threat of Islam.
So why did we never need to invent words to differentiate “moderate Nazis” or “moderate Communists”?
moderate Nazi = Fascist
moderate Communist = Socialist(or Democrat in USA)
Nope — doesn’t wash.
No one ever differentiated the Fascists in Germany vs. the Nazis in Germany.
(Indeed, Nazis were generally considered a special case of Fascists — just as Salafism might be considered a special case of Islam).
No one ever differentiated the Socialists in the Soviet Union from the Communists.
Now, concerning the Democrats, you may have something there.
‘Germans’ and ‘Japs’ were the most common terms used–because they were enemies first. So ‘Japs take over pasrlament’ wouldn’t be redundant. It would let us know that the enemy was on the move.
If we used the term ‘Muslim’ as what it is–the name of the enemy that wants us dead we wouldn’t have this problem. Instead, there exist among us people who want us deciding who to spare and who to kill while we’re being shot at.
Islam is the enemy. Muslims are the enemy. All of them– unless they actively show that they’re not. Simple.
Yes it does wash, because the perspective you criticized comes from outside the Islamic nations and not inside them. Likewise, the terms Fascist and Socialist/Democrat are terms used by our language to describe a more moderate form of Nazis and Communists respectively. If we are adding redundant words to the Middle Eastern languages, you may have a point, but since “we” were discussing our language, your criticism won’t wash. Next subject.
My, my…. what do they teach in schools these days?
So, can you name a single Nazi that any Allied government official, any Allied officer, or any Allied newspaper or correspondant called “moderate”?
Can you name a single Nazi that the same group called “extremest”?
Can you yourself name a single Nazi you consider “moderate”?
Can you name a German Fascist who was not a Nazi (remember that the Fascist and Nazi ideologies were, by definition, extremely nationalistic)?
And…. was Fascist Italy less of an enemy to the Allies than was Nazi Germany?
Nope …. no differentiation between moderate and extremist Nazis (or moderate and extremist Fascists, for that matter). And Nazism was just a German variant of Italian Fascism.
So, again, why did no one coin words to differentiate within a spectrum of these ideologies?
The so-called command to obey even a tyrannical leader is not sharia but fundamental Wahabbi/salafist. The so-call Westernized Islamist imperative is in fact mainstream Sunni.
There are lots of muslims who don’t care about religion one way or the other, just like anywhere else. They live with the constrictions because they were raised in constrained societies that have a conservative streak aside from Islamic imperatives. They may not like it but most just ignore very conservative Muslims and make do as best they can.
And so it is; I was raised to be careful with my use of the words Catholic; Catholicism; Protestant; Protestantism; Baptist; Baptism.
You never know who’s listening.
Raymond Ibrahim: another person who wants to obfuscate the issue that Islam, Muslim, and Jihad are intertwined. Reading the Koran (Along with various hadith) and Sharia law quickly supports that.
Mr Ibraham, maybe you can help me as well as show me your need for other words is necessary. Point me to a moderate Muslim. And by moderate Muslim I mean someone who follows the tenets of Islam as laid out in the Koran and Sharia law (Don’t forget the doctrine of Abrogation) who actively opposed Jihad via word and deed.
If you can do that, then you have a case.
Way to set up a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Your assertion that all Muslims are hostile and there is no need to differentiate is trivial to disprove. There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world. 30 million each in Iraq and Afghanistan. If all Muslims were hostile there would be no way our troops could maintain any kind of presence in either country.
Thus we can see that there exists a population A that is at worst effectively indifferent to our presence and a subpopulation B that is actively hostile. Population A self-identifies as Muslim, so to conflate the two under the Muslim name serves only to push marginal members of A into B. Which is why Islamists are so desperate to do so.
Anyone who rejects the existence of Islamism distinct from Islam is an enemy agent.
The “no true Scotsman fallacy” is a fallacy in itself when it comes to ideology.
Either one subscribes to an ideology or one does not. If one does not, then, by definition, one is not a member of the group defined as subscribers to that ideology.
You really don’t get it. Is Judaism only defined by the Orthodox branch? Which sect represents the “true Christians”? Catholics? Baptists? Copts?
What do you call someone who has memorized the Koran, believes Mohamed was a prophet of God, prays five times a day, attends services at a mosque, follows halal dietary laws, and isn’t interested in blowing up infidels? There are about 1 billion of those people, they probably deserve a name.
Dear ‘Jeff Gauch’,
Most people believe, like you, that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are good people dedicated to peace and just living out their lives. This is a dangerous fallacy.
Various statistics suggest that only 10 – 15% of all Muslims are the so called dangerous radicals or terrorists. Why then don’t the 85 – 90% of your ‘good Muslims’ overwhelm and crush the radical terrorist moment with their superior morality and vastly superior numbers?
It is because the ‘good Muslim’ and the ‘radical terrorist’ Muslim believe the same things: 1) they ALL profess the shahada 2) they ALL submit to Allah 3) they ALL revere Muhammed as their moral standard bearer 4) they ALL believe in the primacy of the Koran as the direct, immutable, unalterable word of Allah 5) they ALL seek to make the entire world submit to Islam.
The vast majority of ‘good Muslims’ are in fact just enablers, facilitators, financiers and supporters of the ‘radical terrorist’ Muslims, because they understand that Muhammed himself was the archetypal Islamic terrorist, and ALL Muslims must strive to be lke Muhammed. The only difference is the degree to which they directly engage in Jihad theology. But they still support it – it is inspired by Allah, mandated by Muhammed, and commanded in the Koran.
ALL Muslims are Islamists.
~ The Infidel Alliance
“Why then don’t the 85 – 90% of your ‘good Muslims’ overwhelm and crush the radical terrorist moment with their superior morality and vastly superior numbers? ”
Because numbers have very little to do with success in armed conflict. Capability and commitment are far more important. Islamists, by definition, care deeply about their cause. For the most part Islamists do not bother Muslims, so the Muslims really don’t care about the Islamists. When that changes you do see the general population turn against the Islamists and the Islamists are defeated. Case in point: Iraq. We weren’t getting anywhere until AQI finally blew up enough Iraqis to turn the Sunni population against them.
“There is no denying that Islam’s sacred law, Sharia — the backbone of mainstream Islam — is intrinsically problematic. One example: hostility for Muslim apostates — from ostracizing them to executing them — is simply a part of the religion of Islam, historically and doctrinally. The same can be said about the duty of offensive jihad and the subjugation of religious minorities and females.”
I don’t understand how anyone, anywhere, could imagine that implementing sharia law could be a good thing in a modern nation. And yet, in Great Britain you now actually have sharia courts, in Europe you have the European nations bending over backwards to accommodate various (and odious) Sharia laws, and even here in the United States you hear talk of having sharia laws being implemented in various Muslim sections of cities. This is madness. It’s the only time I know of where supposedly “modern” nations were actually marching backwards into accepting medieval Islamic laws. Shame on them all. Sharia laws deserve to be thrown into the dustbin of history, and forced to stay there too. No modern nation worth their salt should even consider these hideous rulings, let alone allow them in their countries. Just shows you how afraid westerners are of “offending” people whose only response to any slight (real or imagined) are acts of terrorism and extortion. The West needs to stand up to these religious thugs, before even tensions explode on our streets. This is more relevant to Europe than it is to the United States, but give us time and we’ll be there soon too unless we stop this right now.
@Libertyship46,
Thank you for your expert lecture about “Muslim Sharia” – a mirror-image of “Jewish Halacha”. Be it or not, with your expertise, perhaps now you can enlighten us about “Jewish Halacha”.
My point: you cannot possibly discuss Sharia without discussing Halacha and drawing a comparison between their contents.
But of course you will not do it because then if you remain honest and logically consistent in your argumentation you will be impelled to declare Halacha as well as Sharia evil doctrines, which most assuredly they both are not.
Another reason why you will not do it is perhaps because you are a reasonable man who values self-preservation and you do not want to make yourself the target of Zionists avengers lurking in the shadows of America’s power centers. I can understand that.
right, cause the only way you are allowed to speak about islam is to denounce the evil jews
All religions are populated with members whose devotion to the texts and tenets of their religion can vary greatly from person to person. Some are extremely devout. Call them devout or doctrinaire. Some are lackadaisical in their devotion. Call them not so devout, not so doctrinaire, or call them lapsed.
The problem with Islam is that the closer a person is to the devout/doctrinaire side of the scale the more likely he is to be a threat. Basically that’s what an Islamist is, someone whose sentiments are way over on the devout/doctrinaire side of the scale, maybe even off the chart.
My preferred term is doctrinaire Muslim as opposed to Islamist. We are reluctant to use this term because it carries with it an acknowledgement that the authentic doctrine of Islam does not match up with our illusory view of Islam as a religion of peace, and we simply don’t want to go there. Call them Islamists, call us illusionists.
Personally, I like islamicist or the alternate spelling islamicyst:)
Dear Mr. Ibrahim,
Thank you for your excellent work, especially the Al Qaeda Reader which I strongly recommend for everyone. On the subject of this article I must disagree with you, however.
If examined objectively, Muhammeds Islam is a totalitarian supremecist ideology every bit as evil, indeed more so, than Hitlers NAZI Reich. It is not debatable that the founders of both of these movements were sadistic sociopaths, evil megalomaniacs, and classic tyrants. And it clear that the Islamic and NAZI ideologies are evil reflections of their evil progenitors.
There were plenty of NAZI’s who didn’t kill, terrorize, enslave or exterminate anyone…the bureacrats, officials, administrators, merchants and police. Yet these people were still NAZI’s – people who facilitated, promoted, enabled and propagated Hitler’s NAZI movement. Would we make a distinction in this case and call these people simply good NAZI’s while the leaders, militants and exterminators earn the moniker of NAZIist?
NAZI or NAZIist? This is a most absurd notion.
We must understand that the so-called ‘good Muslims’ are just like the legion of NAZI sympathyzers and facilitators, only promoting, enabling and propagating a different supremecist totalitarian terrorist ideology, Islam.
Until we can face the truth that Islam in and of itself is evil, and commit to discrediting, resisting, fighting and destroying this evil ideology, Islam will win. We fool ourselves at our own peril.
~ The Infidel Alliance
Fantastic post.
The comparison of Muslims to Nazis falls short of the mark. Just like in Nazi Germany (where there was a majority of non-Nazi civilians), the majority of the l billion Muslims in the world live in banality. They want nothing more than to raise families and live their lives. By calling all Muslims or Islamists “the enemy” we alienate the vast majority that are indifferent or even sympathetic to the west. The fact that there is a word that they use to distinguish between extremists and the general population leads rational people to think that we may need to distinguish as well.
The problem with your analysis of this situtation is that the basic tenants of Islam are actually evil. The call to kill and slaughter anybody who does not agree with you, as in convert to Islam, or submit to your authority is one of the main commands of Mohamed. I know of no other major religion that actually does this. I doubt if you find anything in the New Testament, the Hindu text, or the Budhist philosophies that have anything as consistent and savage as the violent verses of the Koran. If you care to take the time to read it you will find that only about 20% of the Koran is about Allah or Mohamed, the other 80% is about us. What I mean by that is that it is about Infidels and how they should be treated. This treatment boils down to: Convert them, if you can not convert them subjugate them, if you can not do either of these thing then you kill them, preferrably in some horrible fashion. Islam itself is evil at the base level and needs to be totally discreditied both at home and in every international organisation.
I have read the koran and you are not entirely wrong. however, my point is that the majority of muslims, just like the majority of christians, are not zealots. like the bible, the koran is “interpreted” and different people see it differently. your hasty generalization that they are all “evil” is naive at best. remember that you are classifying 1 billion people (1/7 of the world). i’m afraid that they wont all fit in your mold.
“remember that you are classifying 1 billion people”
does this number include the people who call themselves muslim for fear of death and/or social ostracization? islam is a totalitarian ideology masked as a religion with perhaps millions held in slavery while we quibble over what to call their enslavers.
Good God! does anyone on this board even know how to read?
So many of the comments here attack a position the author never supports – that Islam is good, Islamism bad (he even goes so far as to say that Islam itself is worse than Islamism).
His point is that by always insisting on using the word ‘Muslim,’ we fall into pit-traps. He gave several good examples, which I paste below:
He’s absolutely right. Do you still insist that the word ‘Muslim’ always appear instead of ‘Islamist’? If so, you create meaningless headlines, like the author shows, and instead of helping, you make it harder for people to understand the threat.
Dear ‘Logically Speaking’,
The simple fact is that ALL Muslims are ‘Islamists’ simply by being Muslims.
They ALL, whether the friendly Muslim down the street, the shoe bomber, Ayatolla Khameini or Osama bin-Laden, believe in Allah, profess the Shahada, revere the sadistic sociopath Muhammed as their spiritual and moral standard bearer, and uphold the primacy of the Koran, Sahih Ahadith and Sirat Rasul Allah as the exemplar for their personal and societal lives.
This is why so many formerly ‘nice, quiet, friendly, religious’ Muslims suddenly erupt into uncontrollable spasms of terror and murder – they discover that Jihad is what is theologically mandated by their ‘religion’. The nicest Muslim you will ever meet (and I know quite a few) still enable, promote and propogate this ideology simply by being Muslim.
Summary:
- ISLAM is evil.
- ALL Muslims submit to Islam, and by the mere fact that they are Muslims they enable, promote and propogate this savage creed, the only difference is by what degree.
- ALL Muslims are Islamists by their very definition.
~ The Infidel Alliance
Sir,
Yours is perhaps one of the most ignorant comments I have ever read. You would have people believe that ALL Moslems, whether secularized, nominal, indifferent or ignorant of Islam, as millions, if not hundreds of millions of them are, that they ALL are Islamists!
People like you cause a great disservice to the anti-Islamist movement, and only give credence to those who cry “islamophobia!” Shame on you.
Dear ‘Anonymous’,
There is no such thing as ‘Islamophobia’, because a phobia is an irrational fear of something.
Any educated or aware person understands that fear of Islam is perfectly rational, because we understand that it Islam is just another supremecist totalitarian terror cult in a long line of supremecist totalitarian terror cults throughout history. Only Islam is the most evil.
Again, ALL Muslims, by definition, seperated only by degree to which they adhere to Jihad theology and Sharia law, are Islamists. They ALL profess the Shahada, submit to Allah, revere the sociopath Muhammed, and uphold the primacy of the Koran. All of them. This is a FACT that cannot be disputed.
Finally, The Infidel Alliance is not a ‘Sir’.
The Infidel Alliance is the Jew, the Christian, the Hindu, the Sikh, the Buddhist, the Zoroastrian, the Baha’i, the Amadiyya, the Copt, the Chaldean, the pagan, the animist, the atheist, the homosexual, the woman, the child and the apostate Muslim….all victims of Muhammeds hate cult.
The Infidel Alliance is a movement.
~ The Infidel Alliance
Methinks Ibrahim protests too much. Is his motive purely to begin an etymology for his precious word? Maybe we should have nouns for everything and maintain monstrous dictionaries wherein could be found any and all differences and similarities between and among every conceivable object of thought and all languages reconciled. Poppycock! Mr Ibrahim, like everyone else, is free to use such words as he likes, but for clarity of thought as well as communication he will not improve on the ancient injunction to “say what you mean, and mean what you say.” All of FeralCat’s points are well made. If what one means to say is muslim jihadist, or militant muslim, or cowardly moderate muslim, or even, Islam is not, never has been, never will be a religion, but is rather a totalitarian political ideology, then one had best just say it and be done. By saying “islamist,” Mr Ibrahim deigns to take out the muslim from the equation. Tell me, please, are there really “islamists” who aren’t muslims?
Another important term that we must all know and understand:
THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR
This is the conflict we are really in. Inspired by Allah, mandated by Muhammed and commanded in the Koran and eminating from the Islamic Reichstag in Mecca.
THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR. Say it. It’s real. Spread the word. Use it.
~ The Infidel Alliance
Thanks, Mr. Ibrahim. I understand where you want to arrive at. I understand what other, like FeralCat says too. I think it is a difficult problem to address.
I prefer to refer to the “islamists” as muslims and the “non-islamists” as secular muslims. But again, this is a problem because it is a whole spectrum out there.
No matter how we say it, be bottom line is, the problem is Islam, Sharia and Mohammed.
Mr Ibrahim,
Thank you for this very thoughtful article. Keep in mind, however, that it is way too sophisticated for this audience, which clearly does not understand what you mean.
But tell us, O great diviner of supreme sophistication (as with Gonzo, the impeccably Subtle One,) it could not possibly be you who are the one that does not understand us, could it? NAAHHH! Seriously, want to know what is wrong with you poor souls who are trapped in the echo chamber of your intellectuality, walled off from the touchstone of reality? Read ‘The Master and His Emissary,’ by Iain McGilchrist. It is a detailed analysis of brain neurology and the development of Western thought. It’s a page-turner.
Pro;
#17 could be classified as “clinging to his suicide vest and his Koran”.
In reality, all muslims are in the Islamic Reserves. When they are called into active duty by their mullahs, they fight in the name of Allah as any of the most radical, for fear of being beheaded by their own family.
This is the only purpose for a “religion” such as Islam. Total and complete domination of the individual.
Worse is removing the term Islam, Islamist, Fundamentalist Muslim, Muslim, Islamic Terror, Radical Islam, etc, etc, etc from all of our documents.
“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War
We are in danger of being in the latter category.
Well, “Islamist” is certainly an improvement over calling a traditional Muslim a “radical” for getting back to those old time imperial religious practices of doing jihad and stoning the women folk. Damn, perhaps now I can be a legitimate “Islamophobe.”
Muslims are our enemy,
Muslims are the enemy of America and the West,
Call them what ever you like
It doesn’t matter
They still want to kill Westerners, Americans and anyone that is a non muslim
Mohamed——–I have been made victorious with terror”
THERE IS NO ISLAMISM
THERE ARE NO ISLAMISTS
THERE IS ONLY ISLAM AND ISLAM IS ISLAM
Islam has always been a problem, more or less, for non-Muslims. This might have been as small an inconvenience as simply paying a tax (dhimmi or jizya), or as large as genocide. Islam has always been a dangerous aggressor who seeks to convert the world by the sword, if necessary. This is from the very beginning, when Mohammad himself used the sword to convert. During Muhammad’s early years as a “prophet” in Mecca, he only converted around 150 people, it wasn’t until after he left for Medina and turned violent did his numbers start to grow: http://www.truthnet.org/islam/whatisislam.html , http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_worldview_war.html
See my more light-hearted post on this very topic –
Posted just a couple of hours ago: http://investingforone.com/2012/02/13/time-to-change-words-again/
Enjoyed your linked essay, IFO.
Not that it’s about to catch on here, but the pronunciation “…Mooossleeeem. To rhyme with moo sleem” (accent on the second syllable), was the way my Lebanese grandparents, whose families lived in Lebanon centuries before Mohammed was born, always pronounced it.
“Such an approach would imply that Egypt’s 70 million Muslims are all out to enforce Sharia — which is not true.”
Agreed. I’m not going to use formulations that promote untruth.
That’s why I use “Islamism” and “Islamist” without apology. Indeed, if we don’t use them, we are in grave danger of missing the geopoliticization factor that Daniel Pipes alludes to.
I was happy with calling terrorists “Islamic extremists” or “radicals.” But terrorism has fallen back, to make way for a state-oriented political movement that does NOT encompass either the routine practice of Islam by individuals or the actions of terrorists. Yet it is significant — I think the most significant thing going on in Islam right now — and must be given a name.
Likewise, a number of commentators have referred for some years to “cultural jihad,” which is a valid if largely passive-aggressive category. Political Islamism is not the same thing as cultural jihad. I believe they intersect but do not overlay exactly.
Islamism seeks to wield power explicitly on a state-based model, and it has explicitly political aspirations, such as taking over the apparatus of government and using state militaries — even if only for intimidation — to outmaneuver Israel and establish Islamic control of Jerusalem. (Westerners have no idea how often Yusuf al-Qaradawi talks about taking Jerusalem. The ayatollahs have serious competition.)
It doesn’t matter if Islamists say there is no Islamism, only Islam. They are making a heroic claim to further their goals. They are not speaking analytically. We should respect what they say as an indicator of THEIR intentions, but we should not mistake it for the truth about all the world’s Muslims.
If there is one thing we should be seeking as the basis for our policies, it’s the truth. We do need a state-to-state orientation to an Islamic movement, which many of us who write on these topics call Islamism. But we would end up with a rigid, useless policy stance if we failed to recognize that there are millions of Muslims who are not motivated by state-oriented Islamism; who are not terrorists; and who do or do not align themselves with cultural jihadists. There are different manifestations of Islam, and it is essential to recognize that reality.
I prefer my private term, LATER-VERSE ENTHUSIASTS. It takes me directly to the Suras of conquest, processing of the spoils, and ruling of the gladly obedient masses. The term “Islamist” makes me uneasy as I am less sure as to what is being expressed wherever I read it. It is like seeing “Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream,” when I am interested in what the Eggnog-Bacon flavor is up to. The “islamist” definition must await the reading of the text for clarification.
Remember “hippie?” Two other competing terms failed to stick, though my guess was they were more descriptive of the subject than the describers: “Fringie,” and the German term, “Halbstarken.”
Just because a person happened to be born and living in Germany during Hitler’s reign, that didn’t make him a Nazi. Hitler and his National Socialist Party was voted into power mostly because of Hitler’s very real power of persuasion. He was a great orator. He was also ruthless. Beating or killing his opponents and having his followers shout down any that tried to speak against him. Most of the German people were not Nazis but to speak against the Nazis meant second class citizenship at the best and prison or death at the worst.
To me, the same holds true for the Muslim people. Most just want to get on with their lives. They don’t want to blow themselves up just in the hope they could take a couple of westerners along with them. The people of Iran, Syria, Egypt, et all are just that, people. To me, what the good Doctor is saying is that we should not judge a whole region because of what a relatively few radicals do. These radicals, much like the Nazis, are firmly entrenched and giving the whole region a bad name. To fight them we must first identify them. The radicals are like a cancer that needs to be removed from the rest of the body without killing those it’s attached itself to.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
But it’s worse than the citizens of these nations doing nothing. We now have a state department, president and 2/3 of the government feeding the muslim terror machine and legitimizing it by and through a process of appeasement and approval.
It’s one thing for the citizens of an oppressed nation to sit back and watch it happen, as it happens but it’s quite another to have outside forces helping it along.
Since the US doesn’t have a policy of overthrowing despotic regimes, at least until Brrrrack did it with Libya, this type of thing will go on in perpetuatum. Other US leaders and their administrations had policies of “suspicious tolerance” to such entities. But no, not this one. And I doubt there is any aide being funneled to underground groups who wish to rid themselves of the shackles of their governments.
However, on the other side of the same coin, I have to bring up the curious phenomenon you speak of in regards to our US Citizen muslims. I did NOT hear a deafening cry of condemnation over 9/11, the Cole bombing or any other violent act by the so-called “extreme” operators of islam. Why is that?
I can only assume that this is because they are as fanatically devoted to islam and the defeat of Western culture as they can be. When I go to Wal-Mart, I gag when I see burkah-wearing people and all that that implies. It annoys me. I find it offensive. I want them GONE. No, not dead. Don’t misunderstand…I want them OUT of MY country. Why? Because of the intolerance they represent. And they are proud of it.
Tagged: http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/02/be-precise-indeed.html
Hm, I have better words than “Islamist”
Pedophile
Rapist
Sodomist
Killer
Criminal
Cultist
Misogynist
…
We need to declare that we are Islamgnostic every time the word Islamophobic is used, then discuss working definitions.
Islamism and Muslims….one and the same if one reads the Islamic texts and about the life and times of non muslims in muslim majority countries.
There is no distinction between church and state. Unbelievers are second class citizens. Apostates deserve the death penalty. Women are at best fourth class citizens. There is no Muslim country where nonbelievers can live safely, without oppression. Conformity is enforced through threats and brutality.
And we in the west are foolishly letting this savage barbarian cult (not religion) within our borders.
Here is an example from history about the peaceful nature of Islam…
I directly gave my command for the Tawáchís to proclaim throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners was to put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the gházís of Islám, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain.”
The more and more I read articles like this on the subject of Islam, the more I am convinced no one wants to get it right. There are some truths here but mostly they are athearing to todays liberalism and political correctness.
First off, Islam is NOT a relegion and anyone who thinks so is just believing what comes out of the mouth of some “Islamist”. Islam is a way of life HELL bent on world domanation. There is no such think as a moderate Islamist. You MUST keep in mind, that once you are trapped by this vile believe, you march to the beat of a Imam or some other Islamist leader. They call the “shots” and all must fallow or death could be their sentence.
There isn’t enough room here to post all that needs to be said but if you really want to learn the truth about Islam, Islamist, or Muslims read the book Prophet of Doom by Graig Wynn or go to the website http://prophetofdoom.net/.
Islam in Muhammad’s Own Words
Prophet of Doom by Craig Winn is the best-documented, most comprehensive, presentation of Islam’s five oldest and most reliable scriptural sources. Ishaq’s Biography of Muhammad, Tabari’s History of Islam, and Bukhari’s and Muslim’s Hadith, were used to reorder the Qur’an chronologically and to set its surahs into the context of Muhammad’s life. When this evidence is evaluated systematically, the only rational conclusion is that Islam’s lone prophet was a ruthless terrorist, a mass-murderer, a thief, slave trader, rapist and pedophile.
Good God! does anyone on this board even know how to read?
So many of the comments here attack a position the author never supports – that Islam is good, Islamism bad (he even goes so far as to say that Islam itself is worse than Islamism).
His point is that by always insisting on using the word ‘Muslim,’ we fall into pit-traps. He gave several good examples, which I paste below:
He’s absolutely right. Do you still insist that the word ‘Muslim’ always appear instead of ‘Islamist’? If so, you create meaningless headlines, like the author shows, and instead of helping, you make it harder for people to understand the threat.
The “bottom line” is that anyone who uses “islamist” or “islamism” is engaging in an attempted whitewash of muslims and islam by joining in the pretending that it is not them and it at fault, just some “extremists” or some other such nonsense. If someone somehow does not realize this, then they are a useful idiot. There is no other reason to use those PC terms.
Stop dodging the question. You say “there is no other reason to use those PC terms.”
Okay, here are three real news headlines from the article:
“Egypt’s Islamists secure 75 percent of parliament”
“U.S. official meets with Egypt’s Islamists”
“Islamist Named Speaker of Egypt House”
So – do you think the words ‘Islamist’ in these headlines should be turned into ‘Muslim’?
If so, you create meaningless headlines, and only make it that much harder for most Americans to understand the significance of the headlines.
What’s your answer?
“So – do you think the words ‘Islamist’ in these headlines should be turned into ‘Muslim’?”
Of course not. I think that words should be turned into Mormons or Hindus or Frisbeterians. Doesn’t everybody?
“What’s your answer?”
All things should be seen exactly as they are. Islam is Islam and that’s it. It’s really not complicated. Muslims are all followers of the torture loving, mass murdering, lying, thieving, rapist of little girls, Islam’s “Perfect Man”, the Monster Who Walked the Earth, Mohammad. You can live in a convoluted fantasy world if that brings comfort to you but I will not.
BTW, you highly overrate your ability in the area of logic.
Ha, ha! I didn’t think you’d have an answer to my question, Ferrie – or more precisely, the article’s point!
How bout we just ban any headline that doesn’t work with the word ‘Muslim’ – like those three? Yea – that will ‘really’ help people catch on to the evils of Islam, huh? Too funny! Anyway, as you were – back to pounding your ‘Muslims are evil’ drum, even when others are making important points and distinctions that have nothing to do with your drumbeat!
No one is talking about banning the use of any words. I’m not anyway. I just prefer to be accurate and not PC. If one wants people to “catch on” to the evils of Islam, they should call Islam, Islam and not some other word like the ridiculous “islamism”.
Accurate headlines. Let’s go with that–
“Muslim Brotherhood secures 75% of Egyptian Parliment”
“U.S. official meets with Islamic terrorists”
“Terrorist Named Speaker of Egypt House”
See? Accurate headlines all without using words made up to lull us into the idea that some Muslims are our friends.
The author wants there to be a distinction. In particular, he wants a distinction that creates enough guilt to forestall the wholesale annihilation that can rain down on Islam without hurting the rest of the world one bit. Islam will not live in peace with the rest of the world. Therefore Islam must go.
Actually, looks like you just proved the author’s point. He doesn’t say the word has to be ‘Islamist.’ He says u can use any word u like. Even the title of the article is “words LIKE Islamist.” From the article: “Is it not better, then, to utilize the accepted terms — “Islamist,” “Muslim radical,” “Islamic supremacist,” “Islamic fundamentalist,” anything other than the generic “Muslim” — simply to be understood, at least in certain contexts?”
And that’s exactly what you did: u didn’t use the word “Muslim”. U made a distinction.
‘Islamism” doesn’t even pass my Firefox spell checker. Maybe “islamism” is French.
Today do I bake, tomorrow I brew
The day after that my World Caliphate comes in
And oh! I will be so glad that beforehand not enough knew
That with Muslims and Islam I am a twin!
In medieval times, people created fairy tales and magical creatures to make sense of their world. One of the most endearing is the unicorn, a horse with a single horn that symbolized purity and wholesomeness. In our modern times, people in Europe and the United States consider themselves more sophisticated and rational than people from the Middle Ages, but we still create myths, albeit more subtle ones.
Daily we hear reports of violent acts committed by Islamic terrorists on every inhabited continent. We try to wish it away with the myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’, telling ourselves the Islamic agenda has been’ hijacked’ by a ‘tiny minority of extremists’ and that soon the huge, silent, moderate majority of Muslims will take charge and change things. However, post 9/11 very few Muslims have condemned terrorist actions. We are still waiting for moderates to stand and deliver, identifying and removing extremist thugs from their mosques and their communities. Waiting for this self-correction is our modern version of searching for unicorns.
Moderate Muslims will not be able to wrest control of the agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammad, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No moderate can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the extremist things Mohammad himself did. Also, the Qur’an condones violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom we call moderates are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. Moderates will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be moderates in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”
Islamic expert Daniel Pipes and others estimate ten percent of the Islamic world to be militant. In 1933 when the Nazi party took control of Germany it had 2 million members, comprising only three percent of Germany’s sixty-six million citizens. A tiny minority of extremists can control a vast number of moderates, making them irrelevant. Placing hope in ‘The Moderate Muslim’ is like searching for unicorns in the forest
you facts are great, and true (as i understand the region). you writing is fliud and intellectual, but your analogy is misleading. I can read your hate for an entire people through the lines.
i apologize, the r key on my keyboard is not working well.
Read whatever you will. F the monster Mohammad and all his sick followers.
sub8 writes:
” I can read your hate for an entire people through the lines.”
What is there to admire? Ignorance, and brutality?
Yes, as individuals they can be pleasant and generous on the outside, but unclean and vile on the inside. See how muslim society treats ALL minorities when in power.
Every Single muslim Society IN THE WORLD!
i apologize, my r key is not working well.
Dear ‘Plague’,
You understand. Keep spreading the truth.
Best regards,
~ The Infidel Alliance
excellent!
Instead of splitting hairs about whether one is a Muslim or a ”moderate (non-Sharia loving) Muslim, why not adopt the term Muslims themselves use for their own pretenders-in-their-flock?
Munafiq is a term used in the Koran and other writings that means a person who is pretending to be a Muslim.
Why would Islam even have such a term?
Because, I am guessing, a huge minority, maybe even a majority who are called Muslims only pretend.
They are afraid to admit the truth and why shouldn’t they be?
The young Saudi blogger who merely expressed his honest doubts is facing execution.
Calling for his death certainly keeps many many, more in line.
There is no such thing as ‘Moderate” Islam nor ‘Fundamentalist” Islam nor
Misunderstood” Islam nor ‘Extremist” Islam there is just Islam. There are ‘Moderate’ Muslims, I know many and am in fact married to one and I live amongst them, but one thing for sure there is no such animal as “Moderate’ Islam. Shariah Law, Jihad and Islam go hand in hand you cant have one without the other no matter what Muslims and their naive gullible left wing moonbat Western apologists try to tell you.
As Christopher Hitchens said in “Assassins of the Mind” in February 2009;
In front of Berzerk-ley audience, May 2007, to liberal Chris Hedges in a debate:
Christopher Hitchens:
It’s exact equivalent of the evil nonsense taught by Hedges and friends of his, who say the suicide bombers in Palestine are driven to it by despair. Have you read the manifestos of these suicide bombers? Have you seen the videos they make? Have you seen the manifestos they put out? The propaganda that they generate? These are not people in despair. These are people in a state of religious exultation. Who are promised everything. Who are in a state of hope. Who are in a state of adoration for their evil mullahs. And for their filthy religion. It’s this that makes them think they have the right to kill others while taking their own lives. If despair among Palestinians was enough to create psychopathic criminal behavior, there’s been enough despair for a long time, and enough misery to go around. It is to excuse the vicious, filthy forces of Islamic jihad to offer any other explanation but that it is their own evil preaching, their own vile religion, their own racism, their own apocalyptic ideology that makes them think they have the right to kill everyone in this room, and go to paradise as a reward. I won’t listen, nor should you, to anyone who euphemizes or excuses this evil wicked thing.
And what, exactly, has changed since then, except the dialogue and terminology?
Nothing particular has changed.
Hamas has gone a little bit quieter in the past 5 years relative to broadcasting its fixation on wiping out the “Zionist entity”.
I put that Hitchens quote up because you mentioned him, and I think the way he characterizes the Islamist agenda in that diatribe to Chris Hedges is exactly correct.
I’d call that “diatribe” an accurate biopsy.
Until there has been a significant check in the growth of Islam, and the number of muslims decline, they are winning the propaganda and territorial battle. As it is now, infidels are acquiescing.
There is no illusion of “anger management” in Islam.
The word “islamist” is like the concept of “palestinian” peoplehood!
Fabricated, and integral to the delusion of the Christian West in the distorted attempt to rationalize the foundational hatred of islam towards all others.
Stupid!
Well, having lived through this swamp (sorry, wetlands) of PC ridiculousness, we now find ourselves in a world of terms like “gender-neutral”. Um…sorry, not buying that. I also don’t buy that “jungle” is now “rainforest” as all forests can be determined to exist simply by virtue that rain exists and all forests need rain.
I was once chastised for referring to an “Asian” person as “Oriental” and that the term I used was somehow offensive. I said, “How so?” and they were at a loss as to explain why. So I still use “Oriental”.
I was born in 1961….I have grown very tired and weary of the PC police re-inventing words and coming up with garbage to make things sound softer and more appealing and socially acceptable. It’s nothing more than a sales tactic and to be quite honest, I hate sales tactic. “New and Improved”. Bleagh.
“Say I am discussing Egypt, which has some 70 million Muslims, and I want to refer to those particular Muslims seeking to enforce full Sharia (the “bad guys”): with what noun shall I distinguish them from the rest of Egypt’s Muslims?”
Idiot ?
And speaking of idiots, were it to gain the full power it seeks, Egypt’s Brotherhood has already announced that it intends to abrogate the country’s treaty with/recognition of Israel.
Today, however, it is in the news the idiots in Egypt are advancing the lame premise that withdrawal of the United States’ regular cash endowment to Egypt will cause them to negate their agreements with Israel.
Can you say blackmail ?
…consider how Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Stockton could not even bring himself to agree that al-Qaeda is acting out “violent Islamist extremism,” fearful that describing “our adversary as Islamic with any set of qualifiers” implies we are at “war with Islam.”
Idiots come in all flavors.
Besides Big Sis and her beyond ridiculous attempts a couple of years ago to apply “man cause disaster” to describe terrorists acts and “overseas contingency operations” there’s Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan (“Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism”) who spoke to an Arabic audience in Jerusalem and referred to the city by its Arabic name, Al-Quds.
Sorry, I have to disagree. Terms like this were invented – which is what makes them false and misleading – to promote the myth that Islam really is a religion of peace and that it is being “hijacked” by the “Islamists”, who are simply the type of violent psychopaths that arise in all cultures and cultural sub-groups from time to time. Christianity had David Koresh, Islam has Osama bin-Laden: so goes the world. This is just untrue. Islam has always been a violent religion. That’s why there are 100% or nearly 100% Muslim states: They KILLED all the non-Muslims! “Islamism”, like it’s predecessor “Islamic fundamentalism” (read: “= Christian fundamentalism”) and rejected because it clearly implies that Islam is fundamentally violent (the very truth that is being denied), is simply an Orwellian term invented and intended to distort and/or hide the truth, not make it more accessible.
Obviously the distinctions you are making are valid and need to be made. But they can’t be made by falling for, or trying to co-opt, the Orwellian Newspeak invented by the Left. You’re going to have to find some other way.
Read the article closely. Youre missing its point. Using the word “Muslim” in every single situation can actually backfire and obfuscate the threat of Islam.
I read the post. I understood the point. I’m wondering if you understood mine.
I agree that we need to make the distinctions he is talking about. But the term “islamist” (and others like it) was invented specifically to obfuscate and deceive: it is Orwellian Newspeak. As such it cannot help; it can only deceive. You have to get at the truth some other way. Perhaps I should have given my own suggestions as to how. I’ll do so now.
There are Muslim terrorists. They could be referred to as: “Muslim terrorists”. There are Muslim terrorist groups (eg. al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah). They could be referred to as: “Muslim terrorist groups”. There are Muslim groups that support terror, some with ideology, some with rhetoric, some with money (eg. CAIR). They could be referred to as: “Muslim terrorist support groups”. There. You know who and what I’m talking about. No need for nonsense terms. Now: the Islamic term for someone who fights a holy war (jihad) is a jihadi. So those jihadis that use terror as there primary tactic can be referred to as jihadi terrorists. Or vice versa; take your pick. In fact, “jihadi” can be substituted for “Muslim” in all of the above terms because the latter is contained in the former (all jihadis are Muslims, all Muslim holy warriors are jihadis.)
Here’s the point: MUSLIMS are doing these things. They are GENUINE Muslims: that is, they are correctly reading and interpreting the Koran’s commands to “kill the infidel wherever you may find him” and following Muhammed’s example, who did just that. They haven’t misinterpreted. They haven’t misunderstood. They aren’t trying to twist and pervert an otherwise “peaceful” religion. Islam has NEVER voluntarily been peaceful. That not all Muslims do these things, or fund them, or even support them is irrelevent. This is what some GENUINE Muslims do and always have done because that is the very nature of Islam. Terms like “Islamist” hide this truth and were designed to do so.
You may find using more than one word – or one word more than once – to describe a thing tedious. But in many cases, like this, it has the advantage of actually communicating the truth. Not every concept can or should be boiled down to one word.
You are being redundant and do not understand the article. Author wrote -
” Is it not better, then, to utilize the accepted terms — “Islamist,” “Muslim radical,” “Islamic supremacist,” “Islamic fundamentalist,” anything other than the generic “Muslim” — simply to be understood, at least in certain contexts? ”
Title of article is “words LIKE Islamist.”
Once again Raymond Ibrahim shows how words matter http://pjmedia.com/blog/words-matter-in-the-war-on-terror/?singlepage=true — though this time in a completely different way. Excellent job!