Last Friday, a Bosnian Muslim named Mevlid Jasarevic walked up to the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo with a rifle and opened fire, terrorizing the city center until he was wounded by a police sharpshooter. Media reports identified him as a “radical Islamist.” What made him an “Islamist”? The fact that he shot up the embassy. On Thursday, Mevlid Jasarevic was simply a Muslim. He became an Islamist with the first shot from his Kalashnikov.
To be sure, the media have also identified Jasarevic as a Wahhabi — but that signifier likewise offered no clue before Friday as to what he was going to do on that day. After all, Wahhabi Islam is the official religion of Saudi Arabia, and no one thinks that every last Saudi citizen is likely one day to start firing at infidel embassies.
Advertisement
My point is that while my friend Andy McCarthy is quite right that there are some Muslims who are interested in implementing Islam’s supremacist political program and some who are not, the “Islam/Islamism” distinction is worthless to distinguish one group from the other. This is precisely because, as Andy quotes me as saying before, the distinction is artificial and imposed from without. There are not, in other words, Islamist mosques and non-Islamist mosques, distinguishable from one another by the sign outside each, like Baptist and Methodist churches. On the contrary, “Islamists” move among non-political, non-supremacist Muslims with no difficulty; no Islamic authorities are putting them out of mosques, or setting up separate institutions to distinguish themselves from the “Islamists.” Mevlid Jasarevic could and did visit mosques in Austria, Serbia, and Bosnia without impediment before he started shooting on Friday; no one stopped him from entering because he was an “Islamist.”
So if Muslims do not generally make this distinction among themselves, should non-Muslim analysts make it? The problem I see with doing so is that for all too many it is a way of implying that Islam itself has no political or supremacist elements, and that those Muslims who do hold political and supremacist aspirations constitute a tiny minority of extremists who have twisted and hijacked the religion. This is not only false, but misleading; it can and does make for wrongheaded and foolish policies that have wasted American lives, money, and matériel, and led us into numerous alliances and agreements with entities we would have been wiser about, had our analysis of Islam been more realistic and accurate.
All too often, American analysts have assumed that Muslim individuals and groups who have no open involvement with terrorism fully accept pluralism, constitutional values, and Western notions of human rights, including the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for women. And all too often, they have been wrong in that assessment, often disastrously so. The billions that the U.S. has given to a duplicitous Pakistani government is a large-scale example; the tour of security procedures at O’Hare Airport given a few years ago to the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a smaller one. In these and many other cases, however, the foolishness of the authorities in question stemmed from their assumption that the people they were dealing with were not “Islamists,” and hence were natural allies.
We have been fooled by too many because of our haste to make this distinction where it cannot be legitimately made. We assume that Muslims who aren’t in al-Qaeda reject the al-Qaeda program, and certainly many do. But for some, the rejection is of al-Qaeda’s tactics, not of its goal.
"...no one thinks that every last Saudi citizen is likely one day to start firing at infidel embassies."
No one? Really? I think there are a lot more foolish assumptions one could adopt than this one. Saudi Arabia is not our friend. They use us and we use them (and I think they're getting by far the better part of the deal), but it would be foolish to think of them or their people as our friends. They are a premier exporter of jihadist thought and any Saudi should, by default, be viewed with suspicion, in my opinion.
The only prudent thing for the USA and all Western nations to do is to limit Islamic immigration. It's obvious to see; the more muslims who settle in an area, the more mosques are raised, the greater influence Sharia Law has, the more repression and 3rd class status of women is seen.
Don't be like my hometown, which banned serving Jello in school lunches because muslims objected to the tiny pork content in gellatin.
Robert, as a conservative and a Muslim I can assure you we will never ally ourselves with you or your bigoted white-nationalist tied friends in Europe. You represent the worst of American society today, xenophobic and intolerant to your core. Citing war torn nations like Afghanistan and Pakistan for your "proof" that Islam and Muslims are intolerant shows the depth of your deception and the ignorance of your supporters. Rest assured that American Muslims like myself will do our best to relegate you and your bigoted friends to the periphery of the conservative movement in America where you belong.
Are you going to work JUST as hard to relegate to the periphery of Islam those who wish to impose sharia law, and especially those who advance that goal through the means of violent jihad?
I assume by your comment that the references made in the article to Afghanistan and Pakistan were accurate. But, however, you quibble that those two locations are not in step with the rest, or most, of the Muslim world - which happens to be tolerant. So, rather that just being incredulous that the author could site such poor examples of intolerance, why don't you provide examples of locations where Muslims are tolerant. Perhaps Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. You could even pick a less prominent Muslim location like Michigan. But without saying how and why he is wrong, your post is useless.
Read the comment again, MuslimGOP. There was nothing intolerant or bigoted about it. On the contrary, it was measured and reasonable. Simply screaming that someone's a bigot at the top of your lungs doesn't make it so. That's a leftie trick. Makes me doubt your bona fides.
As a female I don't want to get along with a culture and misogynist religion such as yours. And I will take it a step further. Islam, Christianity, and Jewism all stem from the same god. So if Allah/Jehovah is a god of peace where is it? How is it that in all three religions women are subordinated to a position of a chattel rather than a person in their own right. It is right in the very teachings of all of your 'divinely inspired writings'. Christians and Jews have managed to evolve to where, most of the time, they can be tolerant towards other's beliefs and basic human rights. Islam obviously has not. I still am waiting to hear ANY moderate muslim groups standing up for basic human rights in this country. CAIR is a stooge for those extremist views that would enslave women and others not of their belief. I find your post extremely enlightening as to what us ladies have to look forward to should your ilk take control. And sir, how is it bigoted to want security and tolerance from our neighbors? That is a basis of civilization. I came here from a different country in order to have the freedoms to guide my own destiny. I certainly don't need some misogynist who thinks a god gives him divine right to order how I shall live. Who is the genuine bigot here? To be a true conservative, sir, allow others to live as they please. Islam in its most benign form still regards sharia law as essential. It is not bigoted or intolerant for me to want freedom from what you espouse as 'divine right'. The koran is very specific, as is the bible and torah, about what to do to unbelievers. Your last statement reveals your true intent. Believe me, Robert won't be the one relegated to the periphery until muslims realize there is no room for sharia law in a civilized democratic society. Any place where Sharia is enacted, France being my country of birth is a prime example, sharia lessens the value of life, makes slaves of women and those of other faiths, and quite frankly, if you are not a male muslim it isn't even safe to go in some neighborhoods. The same thing has been seen in every single major muslim enclave in Europe. No go zones I believe they are called. And it is starting here in our country. Where is your outrage when women are beheaded in a New York TV studio with their children in the car waiting outside? Where is your outrage when a muslim man ran down a women and his own daughter with a car because she committed the death deserving sin of falling in love with an infidel? Did CAIR step up and condemn these acts? Oh no, they are defending these criminals. These acts are just the beginning of the battle. I came here for freedom from such things. You, sir, are the one that belongs in the periphery.
I speak MuslimGOP’s language and can translate his response into plainer language for you. Here goes:
“How dare such an intolerant bigot presume to understand anything about our faith or those who do violence in the name of Islam! This is just another sign that we must defend ourselves from you islamaphobic imperialist Zionist apes and pigs. But even though you reject the religion of truth, are of low morals, and have a heritage of arrogant and unrelenting defiance of the will of Allah, the Koran tells us to treat you real nice. So stop asking about those few aggressive sounding lines in the Koran. When you do, it just shows you’re a racist lynch mob out to tar Muslims with whatever filth you can find. Trust us, the Koran tells us to love you… you infidel bigots!”
Whenever anyone starts talking about the "good" muslims, or when someone claims to be a "good" muslim, I am compelled to point out that the founder of that poisonous death cult ideology was a liar, a pedophile, and a mass murderer, and he clearly demanded same from the adherents to his "religion". We know this because he helpfully wrote it all down for us.
So, anyone, anyone at all who is a muslim, is a follower of a liar, a pedophile, and a mass murderer. How you can be THAT, and be "good" or "moderate" or okey dokey in any way is a mystery to any thinking person.
And by the way, we are well past the time when simply playing the "you're a bigot" card is something that can be used as a cudgel with any effectiveness. We will not be manipulated. We're American, not European. And thinking people with backbone who care for their families and their culture and their country are perfectly entitled to hate bad things, and Islam and its adherents, in total, are bad things.
Muslims have plenty of space in which to live. Space they took over centuries ago. And the Western world does not need to give them any more of it. They're not entitled. At no point in time will our women wear burkas or hijabs, nor will any of us ever bow down to mecca and worship a liar, a pedophile, and a mass murderer, even though the sound of all that is the most beautiful thing the current occupier of the White House has ever heard.
In short, we are not going to submit to the will of a liar, pedophile, and mass murderer.
MuslimGOP: Your comment is pathetic. All you did was engage in an ad hominem attack on Robert Spencer. Why not instead try and point out where anything that Robert Spencer has said or written about Islam is false? I say you can't.
While you're at it, why not tell us all where you stand on the Islamic doctrine, not repudiated by any school of Islamic theology to this day, that requires a Muslim who converts to another faith to be killed? And how about the Islamic doctrine, again not repudiated by any school of Islamic theology or any major Islamic cleric, that disallows any criticism of Islam or Mohammed upon pain of death? How are these Islamic doctrines compatible with basic First Amendment freedoms which include freedom of religion and freedom of speech?
Actually, MuslimGOP, I was raised in uber-liberal Manhattan, and have an almost genetic allergy to anything resembling xenophobia or white nationalism. I've been following Robert Spencer for years, and find his writings scrupulous to a fine point in avoiding support of anything like xenophobia, white nationalism, or any kind of collectivism. Meanwhile, you associate yourself with Islam, which historically has been and often remains totalitarian and threatens to be so in the future.
The Bible doesn't change; our interpretation and application of it does.
The Constitution doesn't change (by itself); the interpretation and application of it does.
Likewise, the Koran doesn't change; Muslims can only change their interpretation and application of the Koran. (Or, they can reject it as wrong and serve a holy and living God.) What should not happen is a bunch of non-Muslims fantasizing about the Koran allowing for peaceful coexistence.
I agree with Spencer. Unfortunately, Islam "is what it is" and no amount of debate by non muslims will change that. Like Communism, it's better designed for conquest and control than running an advanced society or living peacefully with others. Sorry but the truth apparently is that Muslims need to abandon not reform Islam.
Please. Let's not quibble about nationalities in this case. After all, Gavrilo Princip was a Bosnian Serb (to my best recollection). And look what happened when he shot someone.
Mr. Spencer, there may be far more radical Islamists than we would like to consider, but that does not mean that we cannot distinguish between those that are preaching radicalized Islam from those that aren't.
Just like there are like thousands of denominations of Christianity, still we can identify which among them are preaching a radicalized doctrine that produces terrorist acts. Some of those are the Army of God, Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, Lambs of Christ, Concerned Christians, The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, Defensive Action, The Freemen Community, Aryan Nations, Aryan Republican Army, Army of God, Phineas Priesthood.
Even the Jews have a few radicalized groups like those connected with Kach - Terror Against Terror and Kahane Chai. Then there is the Jewish Defense League and the Price Tag group in Israel. Dare I mention Israel's Yad L'Achim, which confessed terrorist/murderer Jack Teitel says he worked with?
The point is that even though there are far many more radicalized Islamist groups, we can still differentiate between those who are preaching terrorism as a reasonable means and those that do not.
The FBI knows where many of these mosques and training grounds are in the U.S. If we acknowledged it can be sorted out, then we could get somewhere in the fight and defense against them.
Your way will never allow for the political will to do take positive steps to prevail.
Hi Donna,
Spencer doesn't say that we cannot distinguish between those preaching supremacist Islam and those who publicly reject it. On the contrary, he has often supported the idea that we should do just that. What he says we cannot distinguish is something else. In many cases, the jihadist turns out to be someone previously considered a moderate, or someone about whom nothing definite was known regarding his personal version of Islam. Spencer did not refer to preachers, while your comment focuses on them. Spencer focuses on the population in general, those who do not go around publicly proclaiming their religious views. That's a critical distinction. (Meanwhile, several studies show that the majority of mosques in the U.S. promote a supremacist version of Islam.)
Also, your comment focuses on terrorists only. By contrast, Spencer emphasized in his article that the jihadists/Islamists move comfortably among a much larger population of non-Islamist Muslims, many of whom share the Islamist goals, just not the Islamist method (terror). Many non-Islamist Muslims do indeed want supremacist totalitarian Islamic law imposed. The media distinction between Islam and Islamists thus conceals the fact that a large population of non-"Islamist" Muslims support the "Islamist" goal of sharia.
The distinction also hides the fact that many non-"Islamist" Muslims bring with them what should be called an Islamic law ethos even where Islamic law is not formally in place. That ethos or culture, deeply a part of current mainstream Islam, tends to impose, by threat and by force, restrictions on speech and on other basic human rights, when those rights conflict with Islam. And they generally conflict with Islam. That culture or ethos becomes incipient, or creeping, Islamic law.
Spencer for years has emphasized that supremacist Muslims, often working by stealth or cultural jihad (not by terror, which was what your comment considered), are at least as much a risk, if not more so, to societies that value freedom of conscience and other basic human rights. The cultural jihad is far larger than the terror jihad.
Repeated polls of Muslims suggest that about 1% of Muslims are interested in actually participating in an act of jihad terror. Another 5% to 8% do not want to participate directly, but generally agree with the use of jihadist terror. Then a much larger group does not generally support terror, but does support totalitarian Islamic law. I've seen estimates from 40% to 60% or more.
The threat of Islamic law exists because demographic trends mean Europe could become majority-Muslim in the not distant future. We frequently hear that the most common baby names in some European countries are Islamic names. The most common boy name is one or another variant of Muhammad, and so on. But if Muslims remained a sufficiently small minority in the West, then of course the threat of Islamic law formally and the Islamic law ethos informally, would be diminished.
Spencer has elsewhere advocated the "sort it out" efforts you support, Donna. He has suggested that something analogous to what the U.S. did in post World War II Japan -- rooting out all political aspects of Shinto -- might somehow or in some form be tried in the U.S with regard to Islam. So you have misunderstood the kind of sorting he says non-Muslims cannot do. He is not against sorting it out, in the sense of holding public supporters of sharia legally accountable. He is saying that non-Muslims cannot sort out what is "Islam" versus what is mere "Islamism." What Islam is, is defined by those who live it and who numerically and otherwise predominate in defining what Islam practically and actually is. Right now, the supremacists dominate worldwide and historically in defining what "Islam" is. From a practical point of view, then, Islam is, and long has been, a totalitarian doctrine.
Spencer is saying that non-Muslims cannot sort out what actual "Islam" is or is not, since that is by definition determined by those who call themselves Muslims and practice and make real something they call "Islam." Any other definition of "Islam" is arguably just abstract and theoretical. But Spencer is all for having non-Muslims sort out and suppress violent and totalitarian elements of something, whatever label it is given.
