My column over the weekend undertook to defend my friends David Horowitz and Robert Spencer against the allegations of “Islamophobia” leveled at them by the Center for American Progress, an influential Leftist think-tank. In the column, I pointed out that I make a habit of using the term “Islamist” (or “Islamism”) to distinguish the aggressive and often violent sharia agenda of America’s enemies from “Islam” as it is practiced by millions of Muslims — in America and elsewhere — who are not Islamic supremacists and who do not seek to impose Islamic law on civil society. I added that Messrs. Horowitz and Spencer also draw this distinction. In making that claim, I was quite certain that I had seen the term “Islamism” in the essay they jointly wrote for NRO a few weeks back. In fact, the word appears in the title of that essay, “Rational Fear of Islamism” — although, for all I know, the title could have been written by the editors rather than the authors.
Robert emailed me over the weekend. While he seemed to agree with most of what I’d written, he offered this correction: He does not use the terms “Islamist” and “Islamism.” 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, I now see that, at Jihad Watch, he posted a piece called “Islam and Islamists” on Friday (i.e., the day before my column was published), fleshing out his views on this subject.
I respectfully disagree with Robert (which will come as no surprise to readers of my last book, The Grand Jihad). I think it would be worthwhile to explain why, and I will do that in an upcoming column. The point of this post is to provide a clarification: Robert Spencer does not use the terms “Islamist” and “Islamism” for the reasons explained and elaborated on in the Jihad Watch post I’ve cited, above. I regret saying otherwise.
The error does not alter my contention that CAP’s charge of “Islamophobia” is without merit. Again, there is nothing phobic about fearing the nexus between Islamic doctrine (as classically rendered in, for example, the sharia manual Reliance of the Traveller) and the threat Muslim terrorists and stealth jihadists pose to the West. Moreover, the fact that Robert sees the Islamic doctrine in question as Islam rather than as one credible interpretation of Islam (which I call Islamism) hardly makes his concerns irrational.
Spencer's concerns aren't irrational, but it would be good if he did make more distinctions than he does. This is exactly why he lined up behind Pamela Geller in her recent accusations against Gov Rick Perry, claiming he was Fifth Column. If Spencer and Geller made more distinction between those who mean us harm and those who don't, we wouldn't have ridiculous false accusations being slung around.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLeftists like to pretend that its just a tiny few militants that are the problem while the vast majority are 'moderates'.
The problem is that the vast majority of 'moderates' support Jihad, even though they aren't personally involved with the violence.
Want to find out of a so-called 'moderate' really is? Try to get them to publicly denounce Jihad. See if they'll denounce Hamas. You'll find that almost none of them will.
Terrorism could never exist without the support of these masses of 'moderates'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
The twin fascisms that causes most massacres, wars, "conflicts" today:
Arabism is racism (Arab racism, Arab-apartheid)
Millions upon Millions are/became victims of [pan-] Arabism which is the worst current form of racism in its gigantic proportions, like: Kurds Jews (not just in Israel) Berbers (the real natives of North Africa), Africans (not just in the genocide in the Sudan or in Egypt on native Nubians by Arab invaders – till today), Persians, etc.
Islamism is bigotry (Islamofascism, Islamic-apartheid)!
The Islamic supremacy that “works” towards its vision of “final Islamic domination on the entire planet”, from Middle east to Africa from Asia to Eurabia, from forced conversions, terrorism, & massacres in multiple countries (like: Thailand, Phillipines, China, Indonesia, Tunisia, Morocco, Kenya, Tanzania, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon India, USA, France, Israel, Russia, UK, etc.) to propaganda, the war includes on Muslims who are not radical enough...,
Let’s face it! that entire war on Israel & the Jews since the 1920’s by infamous facsist Mufti Haj Amin Al-Husseini who started the “genocide campaign” [and continues by the children, grand children of Arab immigrants into Israel - Palestine - now convenienently called "palestinians"] in a clear outlined declaration to 'kill all Jews', is nothing but out of pure Arab Muslim bigotry.
---
Why does biased media blame Israel defenders from vicious Arab Muslims who use civilians when they attack Israeli civilians... so that their civilians (they prefer kids to) die then parade with the casualties as "innocent victims"???
BTW
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile the Islamo Arab dictatorship (& real Apartheid upon the non-Arabs, non-Muslims) goes on...
Israeli [ungrateful] Arabs won't mention FAVORITISM by democratic pluralistic multi-racial Israel in: land, courts & universities, by the same token, the totalitarian & mullahcracy dictators of Iran with its Hezbollah thugs & militant "Palestine" anti-freedom forces cast their genocide plan under "freedom fighting."
So you admit you write articles without doing even basic research?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs much as I admire McCarthy's work and agree with him on nearly everything, on this issue I side with Mr. Spencer, and through his link below, to Turkey's Erdogan. The fact that multitudes of people calling themselves Muslims neither practice strict Sharia nor seek to impose it, does not mean their beliefs are true Islam. The beliefs of the true believers and the clerics who have power and are willing to use it are what's important, especially since "moderate Muslims" tend to tacitly accept the actions of the true believers.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseespecially since "moderate Muslims" tend to tacitly accept the actions of the true believers.
--------------------------------
Well said. If such a large group 'hijacked' Christianity as we hear the terrorists have 'hijacked' the religion of peace - I for one would want to take it back. In fact, we see just that when some lone nutcase blows up an abortion clinic in the name of Jesus. Christian leaders from all denominations denounce the violence.
So where is Islam's reformation? What are all these Muslims waiting for? Where is the unequivocal (key word) denouncing of violence?
Instead why is it the first thing we hear after an act of terrorism is the moderate Muslim expressing their fear of reprisal from the angry, American bigots, complete with a couple anecdotes about being called a name in line at the bank, or not being picked up in a taxi.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRobert sees the Islamic doctrine in question as Islam rather than as one credible interpretation of Islam
---------------------------------------------------
Credible interpretations come from the text a religion sees as sacred. There are professing Christians who deny Jesus was born of a virgin, did any miracles, or rose from the dead. They deny his death does anything in terms of forgiving the sins of others. Yet, they profess Christianity, but one can hardly say they are embracing a credible interpretation of the BIble.
In a word, they are apostate.
Islam has its apostates too - the question is which of the two general sides are they? Well, what does the Koran teach as to obligations of the true follower of Allah?
Just as there are thousands upon thousands of theologies and commentaries on the Bible, that explain the important distinction between the Old and New Testaments, that explain how the difficult verses in Leviticus were for a theocratic nation of over 3000 years ago, and not to be followed by Christians in practice today (or the last 2000 years). Just as within the Bible itself entire New Testament books like Galatians and Romans and Acts make clear this distinction...
Where is the equivalent in Islam? Because I own a Koran too, and the teachings about the infidels are pretty darn clear..
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd prefer people work to create a moderate version of Islam, rather than calling a person who hasn't yet committed a terrorist act (or hasn't yet been caught) a "moderate."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMcCarthy is right, Spencer is not.
The first and most important clue is that Islamic extremism was a virtual non-factor for centuries prior to the early 20th century. That is a clear indication that what is at work is very much a modern phenomenon, not a historic trend.
That is clearly documented in Youssef Choueiri's "Islamic Fundamentalism" (first published in the 1990's, largely prior to the heavy politicization of the discourse over Islam) which clearly documents the rise of Islamic extremism by way of its modern architects, primarily Sayyid Qutb, whose disciplines formed al Qaeda. He clearly documents modern Islamic extremism, not as a continuous extension of historic Islam, but as a modern movement which was heavily influenced by other modern movements such as fascism and (please contain your surprise) socialism. Its goal was not the revitalization of previous Islamic thought (although that was the intent of some early reformers), but a novel reinterpretation of sacred texts providing the doctrines for a new utopian state founded by an ideologically pure vanguard (sound familiar?)
Of course the Islamists believe that their interpretation of the sacred texts is the only correct one - that is what all religious extremists believe. What is unfortunate is that their opponents have found that claim to be a convenient one and have accepted it as true on its face. The evidence is otherwise. Islamic extremism was not a factor for hundreds of years because, prior to the modern era, it did not exist in its current form, and followers of Islam were content to interpret their sacred texts in ways directly at odds with the ways the extremists interpret them now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseViolent jihad is nothing new. Read up on the Barbary Wars.
The only thing new is technology, which makes violent jihad far more dangerous than in the past.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is exactly where we lose the laser focus of combating our enemies, the Islamists, who whether by terrorism jihad or stealth jihad mean Western civilization harm. When we start to focus on Islam the religion, we lose all of our footholds on climbing the mountain of resistance to combating Islamist terror.
Certainly the Koran contains all the verses to back up jihad against and subjugation of the infidels, but in the hands of someone like Dr. Zhudi Jasser, the Islam of the Koran is not just a wolf in sheep's clothing waiting for the power shift that unleashes the aggressive Islam. That is why CAIR, ISNA, MSA, etc. are dangerous wolves in sheep's clothing, but the American Islamic Forum for Democracy is not.
That is no different - except in the terms of the percentage of followers - than Christian groups who use scripture to justify their hate groups and activism.
Jasser is not a lone modern voice of Islam but these voices still are not favored by the media as go-to spokesman for American Islam, (1) because of the smear campaigns that CAIR does on people like Dr. Jasser to retain its media preferential treatment, and (2) because of anti-terrorism voices who say there are no distinctions to be made between Islam the religion and the malevolent hidden agenda of Islamists.
Those who make all Islam the target of our mutual battle against Islamist terror are cancelling out the credibility of those who are focused like a laser beam on the Islamist terror operatives and stealth jihad network that supports them.
These two blur real existing demarcation lines between those who mean us harm and those that don't. It also allows foolish media and government officials to keep the door open to bad actors from the Islamist community.
Until we clearly make distinctions between the religion of Islam and the Islamists, we are only going to provide cover for actions like Eric Holder pulling all references to Islam out of anti-terrorism training manuals. Also even the conservative press will continue to treat CAIR like it is the authentic voice of the Muslims in American. We are the ones giving Islamists the platform and mic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpencer is right. Islamist means muslim. It's absurd to call real muslims "Islamists" and bogus, Americanized, Britney Spears fan muslims as "Muslims." How disingenuous, ethnocentric and insulting to muslims and Islam!
If "Islamists" means 99% of followers of Islam and "Muslim" means 1% of followers of Islam, what kind of nonsense is this?
Would you call Christians who believe in Christianity "Christianist" so as not to offend the Unitarians, and call the Unitarians "Christians"? If NRO does that, then I will support this Islamist nonsense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can and do make distinctions between Christians and those who have left the train tracks like the KKK, or any number of other hate groups including Christians who bomb abortion clinics or murder abortion doctors.
It is only the right thing to do. I will not claim spiritual kinship to those who mean harm or do harm to other human beings.
Islamists don't want to be separated out from the evolving Western modern Islam for obvious reasons. It is harder for a wolf to hide in a sheep's pen when it has no white wool disguise to pull over itself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEvery tenable interpretation of Islam supports violent jihad. Any muslim who opposes violent jihad is "off the tracks."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIslam is Islam. There is the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-Harb.
Andrew, who is usually so forthright, has accepted this pcism in the hopes, perhaps that moderate muslims will not take offense to his strong position--never understanding how this undermines him.
There are no moderate muslims. All Islam will rejoice when all the world knows that there is one God, Allah, and Muhammed is His Prophet. All. Including Mr. Friendly Muslim who you seek to not offend.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMcCarthy's position is hardly PC, Azathoth. Yours is the fantasy version, pretender.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Head Islamist in the White House has succeeded in denying Middle-East Christians a meeting with Obama or Clinton.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne problem is that Islam is being sold as a "religion of peace". In fact, it is a "religion of submission". (That's what "Islam" means.) Perhaps we are to understand it as "peace through submission". For us, though, that sort of peace is the peace of the conquered.
Aarradin: "Leftists like to pretend that its just a tiny few militants that are the problem while the vast majority are 'moderates'."
Two things: 1) While it is true that 99.9% of all Muslims are moderate (peaceful), it is also true that 99.9% of all terrorists are Muslim. For every Anders Breiivik, there are a dozen Muslims of various types who have killed "in the name of Allah".
And I argue again that the word "Islamophobia" is a misnomer. "Phobia" means "fear". It is not fear we feel, but intense dislike of a philosophy that treats women as chattel, murders their daughters if they're unlucky enough to be raped, forces their daughters into "arranged marriages" at the age of 11, beheads people for thinking the wrong thoughts ... and this list can be extended ad nauseam (as if the first 4 weren't enough).
2) It's far too easy for "moderates" to say, "this isn't us". The moderate is the one who is perfectly content to let the fundamentalist kill us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse