Islam or Islamist? That is the question. Is the term “Islamist” a politically correct fabrication to dodge the inconvenient truth that Islam itself is inherently and inevitably chauvinistic and totalitarian? Or is it a necessary distinction to draw: denominating supremacist Muslims striving to impose on societies a classical, rigid construction of Islamic law, distinguishing them from authentic Muslim moderates who elevate reason, embrace pluralism, and take sharia as spiritual guidance rather than the mandatory law for civil society?
I think we have to separate Islamists from Islam. My friend Robert Spencer disagrees. As NRO readers may know from my reviews of some of Robert’s books and my frequent references to his invaluable work at Jihad Watch, I hold him in high esteem. On this question, however, he is mistaken. And because how we answer the “Islam or Islamist?” question critically affects how we respond to the profound threat posed by supremacist Muslims, we must answer it correctly.
Advertisement
A little background is in order. My column last weekend was a defense of Robert, and of David Horowitz, against the “Islamophobia” charges recently leveled at them by the Center for American Progress. There, I pointed out that “I regularly use the term ‘Islamist’ rather than ‘Islam’ to draw a distinction between the ideology of the enemy and Islam as it is practiced by most American Muslims, and by millions of Muslims throughout the world.” I added that Messrs. Spencer and Horowitz do likewise — an assertion I made because, among other reasons, I was sure I’d seen the term “Islamist” or “Islamism” in the September 30 essay they jointly published here on NRO. In fact, it is in the title of that essay, “Rational Fear of Islamism” — but titles are often the work of editors, not authors.
As recounted in the Corner earlier this week, Robert e-mailed me after the column appeared to offer this correction: He does not use the term “Islamist.” In his view, the “Islam/Islamism distinction is an artificial one imposed by the West, with no grounding in Islamic history, theology, or law.” Coincidentally, it turned out that while I was busy writing my column for that weekend, Robert was penning “Islam and Islamists.” In it, he expanded on this very argument. To use the term “Islamist,” he asserts, is to incorrectly imply “that Islam itself, in its authentic form, has no requisite political aspect, and no incompatibility with Western values or democratic government.”
My seminal disagreement is with Robert’s premise that there is and can be but a single authentic form of Islam. As readers of The Grand Jihadknow, I struggled mightily with the “Islam or Islamist” question. It is the subject of my book’s second chapter, which asks whether our challenge is appropriately labeled “Islamism” or whether that label is a cop out, side-stepping the grim reality that Islam itself is and will always be the West’s problem.
Obviously, the West will never arrive at a successful defensive strategy unless we correctly identify the threat. So, should we focus our attention on those Muslims for whom imposition of sharia — Islam’s supremacist politico-legal system — is an inseparable part of their ideology? Or, in the alternative, should we come to the reluctant conclusion that this mandate to impose classical sharia, with its laws governing all aspects of life, simply is Islam? As I concluded in the book, there are too many non-supremacist Muslims to write off Islam; our target must be the supremacists. “Islamist” is a label suitable to the essential task of distinguishing our Muslim enemies from our Muslim allies — declared and potential.
There is only one truth, but there are infinite falsehoods. Only truth is "immune from even the possibility of alteration and evolution."
Islam cannot be immutable without being true. Claims that Islam has a definitive absolute expression are not only wrong, but they are also a subtle form of idolatry.
This was an outstanding discussion of a very important topic. I wish you would address the issue of time from the western perspective. It seems as if all other major religions have had their enlightenment. If an enlightment for Islam is possible as I infer from your article, how does the timing of that fit with the present conflict between Islamism and the west?
Wow, is this the same Andrew McCarthy writing about Libya earlier this week? A very interesting, thought provoking piece. Bravo, sir. The "all Muslims are our enemies" crowd really needs to be silenced by rational, thoughtful discussion like this.
I'm not sure if Mr. McCarthy is splitting hairs or not but there is a major absence of "moderate" Muslims, as the west would identify them, condemning the murderous behavior of some of their religious brethren.
I know an imam from a rather large mosque in our metro area. Every time I mention the murderous behavior of other Muslims, his answer is always, "But they do not practice real Islam." When I mentioned that Mohammad committed atrocities at Medina before moving on to Mecca, the imam ignored it. When asked about the four wives, the answer was that when men were killed there needed to be a legal way to support the widows.
His well-educated wife, out of the blue, made the statement that she hates Jews.
He always has an explanation for the Muslim behavior that counters what a non-Muslim would like to see/hear from a true Muslim. There is always someone or something else to blame.
Personally, I don't care about the distinction between Islam and Islamist - what is needed is for more than a very few of these people to acknowledge that perhaps practices of their religion both past and present were rather gruesome. I've never heard any moderates say this and this ignoring of past sins (for lack of a better word) raises the question as to whether or not they will ever be able to admit errors, mistakes, wrongdoings. This inability to admit failure in any sense is inconsistent with a freedom driven society.
This inability to admit problems creates an atmosphere where change, innovation, creativity cannot occur. Perhaps this mindset is why the "golden era" of Islamic invention occurred in cities where Christians and Jews were at least respected even if treated unequally.
The sad thing is that when push comes to shove, the bullies win. We may all pay.
You seem to be saying that if we dare to claim that Islam necessarily requires severe political restrictions such as Sharia law, that we ourselves will alienate the moderate Muslims and "antagonize" them (your term). I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that I am somehow responsible for antagonizing moderate Muslims simply by stating the obvious: that the vast majority of the Islamic world at the very least refuses to repudiate radical Islamism. The silence is deafening -- so much so that you are straining to find even a few courageous souls within Islam to speak out against Sharia. Where are the denunciations -- publicly -- of so many of the extreme events such as stoning of victims of rape, or so-called honor killings. One could hear a pin drop in any mosque listening for denunciations of 9/11-type terrorist attacks, and those carried out since then. Oh, wait -- that's right -- you couldn't hear the pin drop because of the celebratory dancing in the streets and gunfire when 3000 Americans were murdered in cold blood. PLEASE -- stop making excuses for Islam. It is a poisonous ideology -- period, end of discussion!!
I think your comments about Saudi outlawing slavery shows a lack of knowledge about what is actually going on there. Slavery is alive and well in countries like SA and Kuwait. Oh, on the books is is illegal they like nothing more than to stand up in the UN general assembly and praise themselves for their "great record on human rights". But in reality there are millions of people from places like Sri Lanka, Banglidesh, Malaysia, and so forth that would love to trade a day with any of us westerners. I see it first hand while living in Kuwait. They may not officially call them slaves, but that is totally lost on reality here!
I am deeply grateful for your exegesis on many levels. You have given me a modicum of hope, not in a sophistic sense, but perhaps in the longue durée where we reach a brief resting place firmly grounded in our common humanity not in ideology driven by hatred.
Islam or Islamicists? False question .. the real enemy of civilization is the Koran .. It is filled with exhortations of brutality and anti-Islamic fervor ... Sharia Law is simply that .. and in case you didnt know .. separation of church and state are essential tenets of our way of life .. Even raising the question that Sharia Law could somehow be acceptable in the US proves you are wack ... Sharia Law has no place in our legal system except for those with brains and spines of mush ... Honor killings .. be damned .. No special treatment for Islam over any other religion in the USA ..
A lot of intellectual effort expended wherein an analysis merely on the basis that Islamism is largely a function of the interaction of opportunity, social disposition, ignorance, infrastructure, economic development or the level of tie-in into western economies.
Indonesia is forced into moderation because of economic/political dependency. Saudia Arabia is an extremist because its dependency is of a more dominant form - they may have to sell oil, but the West also has to buy it. They are more independent from Western pressure or influence.
Places like Egypt, Syria and other failed muslim societies have their supports, the latter has Iran, the former has Saudia Arabia and America.
Islamic 'moderation' is not out of any inherent love of Western political or moral principles, but of an inability or constraint because of an inherent economic dependent disposition with respect to the West.
If Indonesia tomorrow acquired economic indepenence from the need for Western aid, trade, investment etc. the virulence of their islamicism would be just as incorrigible as 'palestinians' or Iranians or Saudis.
If Indonesians profess 'moderation' it is also because they know that islamicism will not effect or yield any useful social dividend.
None of this is hardly a basis to ascribe any temperence to islam because there is a reforming element within it. There are no 'reforming elements' within the economically dominant country versions. It is a system that only responds to force of one kind or another.
Besides, I don't see those 'millions of moderate muslims' demonstrating or agitating against the actions of their islamist 'extremists' bretheren.
Whilst islam was an inferior backwater compared to European scientific advancement it was contained. Flushed with oil revenues it now presumes to think the prophesies of dominance are within its reach. This genie can only be put back in its place when it is shown otherwise and put in its proper orientation.
I don't think we can say that Islam is as Muslims do. Islam is a set of core beliefs passed down by its prophet and those who have interpreted the words and deeds of that prophet. Unfortunately, the core beliefs of Islam are, as McCarthy points out "chauvinistic and totalitarian" and, as I would add, violent. True, there have been Muslims who have not wholly embraced those core beliefs, but Islam is not redefined by that rejection. Call these folks reformed Muslims or fallen away Muslims, but they do not define Islam. Islam is defined by its sacred writings which, unfortunately, are intolerant and violent.
I have to side with Spencer on this one. If you have an ideology that allows, make that, encourages, make that, demands that its followers lie to unbelievers, on its road to supremacy by hook or by crook, you have an insolvable dilemma and it's not our fault if we don't trust any of them. Until there is a reformation that uncategorically abrogates a large part of the Koran, a moderate Muslim must leave Islam and become one of us infidels. Period.
Strict, traditional, observant, shari'ia-compliant, perpetually outraged Islam = more bombs.
Westernized, casually observant, moderate, buffet Islam = fewer bombs.
To become more reasonable, all they need do is... leave Islam.
The farther away they get, the less likely they are to kill us.
Safest = complete apostasy (complete with fatwah and death sentence).
Having followed McCarthy and Spencer for some years now as both have commented on the nature of Islam verses the proposed, "Islamism" I'm persuaded that the latter, Spender, has rightly assessed the problem and the former has, for reasons he may have however noble, failed to properly interpret the nature of Islam for his Western audience. Of the dozens of countries currently inhabited by at least a slim majority of Muslims, which ones have complete respect and regard for their non-Muslim minorities and neighbors? Iran? Turkey? Egypt?
I find that Islam as practiced around the world lends it self too easliy to the manipulations of men. I have serious doubts that it can truly be reformedt. Right now I see no movement towards purely theological debates like you see in Christian churchs. I see more moves toward the supremicist view of islam. The only way I see peace coming is the reduction of Islam ot a minority religion by people seeing it as a false path to God.
Great article Mr. McCarthy. The distinction is worthy. At the same time it concerns me that the 'moderates' have no substantial voice. The virulent and violent drivers of Islamism seem to use their strain of interpretation (and force) to silence all opposition and co-opt them to export their desire for a caliphate and destroy all infidels.
Islam should be understood in the context of gangs. Islam is a body of lore which implicitly and explicitly defines a group that may justifiably prey upon all others. Kill, them, rape them, enslave them, or merely tax them, as the Member sees fit. All that is asked of the Member is allegiance to the Gang.
Once Islam becomes the dominant ideology of a region, there is a natural tendency to moderation. The difficulty is that the clear words of the Koran are an open invitation for some hard-eyed lunatic to charge apostasy, and declare a jihad against all the "Unbelievers". A gangster ideology will find itself some gangsters.
Think Bloods and Crips, think Mafia, and you are thinking Islam. The difference being that open adherence to the Crip Credo entails social disapproval and legal suppression, whereas claiming to be more Muslim than the next man is a winning strategy in the Muslim world.
I developed this theory from studying the history of the Wahabis in Saudi. The dynasty sitting on top of the world's largest oil reserves was placed there by exactly the process I outlined above. They are perched there quite precariously, and could be brought down at any moment by the same process, as they are only too well aware. They find themselves forced to bankroll the subversion of our society in order to maintain control of their own.
Since this process is fueled by belief in the moral supremacy of the words of the Koran, which sanctions violence, it *will* recur as long as that belief exists. "Moderate" Islam is the necessary precursor of "radical" Islam. It is the Petri dish containing the nutrients that enables the disease to thrive. Like it, lump it, it is the problem we face.
Methinks Mr. McCarthy is whistling in the wind. Indeed, he admits early on that in his search for a scholar who will say the Blind Sheikh is wrong for perverting Islam, "Alas, you never find that scholar." Is it not instructive that of the millions upon millions of Muslims worldwide, that no one is willing to step forward and condemn the so called radical Muslims? Is it not possible that the reason not one scholar will step forward and condemn these radicals is that not only do Muslims in general tacitly condone the actions of the radicals, but in reality, they see these radicals as purists strictly adhering to the spirit and written word of their religion? To deny this simple truth is foolhardy and the complacency it engenders, dangerous.
Lemnos, allow me to dash your naive "hope" with the following facts...
I used to have some respect for McCarthy before this article. I’ve read the Koran, many of the Ahadith, as well as some of the Islamic Jurisprudence. What Mr. McCarthy doesn’t understand is that once you eliminate all the hate, atrocity, violence, misogyny, etc, you are left with one thing: “Believe in Allah and his Prophet or go to hell”, as well as instructions on what direction to defecate and urinate in. So does this sound like a religion that is good and just or just a socio-political guide to run your life?
And consider the following 2 points:
1) The Koran permits treachery and deceitfulness in times of “weakness”, so what are we to belive from any of their mouths?
2) The central idea behind jihad is: “Kill the enemies of Islam where you find them.” Let’s also add in that per the Koran and Ahadith jihad can be fought with money, property, moral support, as well as with violence. Top that off with the fact that the Koran does NOT obligate ALL of the “faithful” to conduct violent jihad. In fact, as long as SOME of the faithful is conducting violent jihad some of the time, this is acceptable.
So given points 1 and 2, I see “moderate” Muslims as either 1) bad Muslims as there are bad Christians and Jews or 2) “sleeper” that are silently conducting jihad through cash donations, actively white-washing Islam, etc.
As a final thought, consider this: what happens when a “bad” Christian (one who does not perform charity, etc.) becomes a good Christian? Is the world better off. Now ask the same question about a “bad” Muslim, what is the end result.
I summarily reject the notion of a “moderate Muslim” on these grounds.
Wishful thinking. We haven't got time for those fundamental changes to be made. Changes that Judaism and Christianity made over many centuries. Islam is what it is now. Not 300 or 500 years from now. Therefore, Islam as it is practiced by the majority - which while not explicitly supporting jihad - will not oppose it, and will dance in the streets at any defeat or murdering of the Western world, must be defeated. Politically, militarily, socially. The Spaniards once understood this. The Europeans all once understood it. Now America must. The Western world must once again - sadly - pick up the Crusader's sword.
