Problem with Semantics - Islam, Islamism, Islamofascism and Americans
Reader comment on item: Symposium: Holiday Jihad?

Submitted by Singha (India), Dec 17, 2007 at 10:15

<<Dr. Pipes Says "Muslims must indeed do much work do modernize their religion, but it is counterproductive to deny them this potential and insist that they remain mired in the horrors of Islamism. Would it not be better to give them a hand to help pull them out?">>

I have written this elsewhere and I reiterate the same. In my narrative 'islamist' and 'islamic' mean one and the same.

The discourse in United States that somehow muslims and islamists are two different entities is problematic and is likely to result in policy failures; I will articulate why.

Some opinion makers believe that a useful purpose is served by creating a distinction between Islam (dealing with religion) and Islamism (dealing with politics). While in theory this semantic approach gives people including muslims the opening to attack islam, it also obfuscates and in a way makes islam, an imperialistic totalitarian belief system, look nice suggesting as if islamism is something different and is the sole problem. Worse as we have seen on so many occasion it makes it possible for muslims to camouflage their intentions under the cloak of moderate behavior and further islamic interests.

India has been a victim of this warped and perverted logic of mixing up islam and islamism. Over a thousand years, efforts by well meaning individuals to moderate islam met with only failures. Recently, the indulgence, tolerance and the kindness of the best known apostle of peace and non-violence in the twentieth Century - Mahatma Gandhi could not prevent Muslims from intolerance and accept as equals those following a contrary faith. The well-educated westernised Muslims such as Mohummad Ali Jinnah, as much as the mullahs such as Maulana Maududi, preferred mobilising Muslims into a separate Islamic nationhood in the process killing millions and ethnically cleansing out non-muslims.

Dr. Pipes mentions about reformation process in Judaism, which he says is similar to islam. He surely knows that the Jews were far more integrated with the non judaic host societies and were traditionally part of the intellectual elite.

Islam and Islamism(poltical islam) remain siamese twins with one single heart. They are two sides of the same coin and are inseparable. Islamists such as Musharraf and the pakistanis have been able to expoit this perception of difference between muslims and islamists very well, positioning themselves as moderates taking on islamists in a mock fight, winking at islamists at a fundamental level, boosting the capabilities of islamists. And Pakistanis have earned over 20 billion dollars for marketing themselves as moderates. Ditto with Saudis who have used Americans to develop their economy while undermining Free values by supporting islamic values world wide. In fact, Saudis have bribed Influential Americans to ensure that their blatantly racist and totalitarian islamic system never gets scrutinized. Handing over one or two muslim terrorists at intervals and assertions of moderation will hardly dent larger islamist potential for mischief.

Taking on Islamism is going to be the fight of the century; a total war. There are no easy options. The Islamists are extremely capable and underestimating the threat is not going to help anyone.

It is time to declare Islam as the enemy to the civlisation and freedom. The costs of obfuscation and refusal to clearly see reality have always been calamitous.

Dr. Pipes, It is indeed productive to deny the possibility of change to Islam; If we assert the contrary, we run the risk similar to Neville Chamberlain's act of wishing for a moderate nazi; We run the risk of helping islamic world cope with the skill gap that exists today between them and the free world and directly contribute to enhancing muslim capability for damage.

Singha

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.