5 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Rhetoric and the term "Islamists"

Reader comment on item: Department of Corrections (of Others' Factual Mistakes about Me)

Submitted by Tim Cleaveland (United States), Aug 30, 2006 at 13:16

This is a comment regarding Mr. Daniel Pipes' embrace of the statement "all Islamists are inherently violent" as "exactly right." Mr. Pipes also stated that, "Islamists are our enemy." One of the problems with Daniel Pipes' rhetoric towards Muslims is his use of the word "Islamists" to refer (apparently) to Muslims who resort to violence to achieve their ends. A better term would be "Muslim extremists" or some other term that directly communicates the idea that the people being criticized are not ordinary Muslims.

Or one might prefer that the word 'Muslim' be dropped completely, suggesting that the use of violence against civilians is not consistent with the teaching of Islam. Such a change in rhetoric would bring Pipes' criticism closer to the language that Western scholars (and non-scholars) use when criticizing non-Muslims.

For example, historians refer to the 'European' conquest of the Americas, 'European' colonialism, and 'European' atrocities. Even though Europeans generally justified the conquest of the Americas by reference to Christianity, historians rarely if ever refer to the complete elimination of some Native American peoples as a 'Christian genocide' or 'Christianist massacres.' Similarly we do not refer to the Atlantic slave trade as the 'Christian' or 'Christianist' slave trade. Nor do we refer to 'Christianist' slavery and racism in the Americas, even though reference to Christianity was the core of Christian slaveholders' justification for the enslavement of Africans.

Similarly we lay the blame for the twentieth-century 'Holocaust' against Jews and non-Jews at the feet of the Nazis, not the 'Christianist' Germans. Even the angry critics of the terrorist bombings and violence perpetrated by the Irgun and other Zionist groups do not refer to that violence as 'Jewist' terrorism, or the product of 'Jewism.' There are good reasons for why scholars do not refer to slavery in the Americas as 'Christianist'; to do so would be to assert that there was something essentially 'Christian' about the historic enslavement of Africans. While some scholars might want to argue that, it would be unfair to impugn the essence of Christianity by slapping a label on it without making a substantial argument to that effect. Similarly, there are even better reasons not to refer to terrorism perpetrated by Muslims as 'Islamist.' In addition to the above-mentioned issue of scholarly fairness, there are also the issues that the United States has a long history of intervening in the politics in the Middle East, and the American people (who must accept or reject various interventionist policies) are woefully uneducated about the region and Muslims in general.

The political power of Mr. Pipe's usage of the term 'Islamist' is revealed in a question and comment that a caller posed to an NPR analyst who was answering questions about the war in Iraq during the actual invasion in 2003. The caller asked why anyone would question our invasion of Iraq after the attacks of 9/11. The analyst responded by saying that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein or Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Then the caller asked whether Saddam and the attackers were both Muslim. The analyst said 'yes', and the caller responded by saying "like I said, they're the same people." A similar example comes from a US congressman, who stated that if a nuclear bomb exploded in the US, then we should nuke Mecca. And why not? As some of my students say, "aren't they all Islams or Moslems or whatever you call them?"

Sincerely, Tim Cleaveland


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 and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (45) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
2The toxic brew of Islamists and the Regressive Left [338 words]dhimmi no moreAug 26, 2017 09:44240600
Eventually, the sun always shines through [299 words]Michael SSep 27, 2017 17:46240600
2The source of the plot of the 2011 Muhammad's video? The Sira is the source! And Islamists, the Regressive Left and evil Politicians [400 words]dhimmi no moreOct 3, 2017 12:39240600
1You have gotten off lightly, Daniel [200 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Michael SAug 14, 2017 15:30240473
Shoddy journalism or deliberate misinformation? [103 words]JeffApr 9, 2017 10:37238352
Truth Tellers and Liars: The New Diversity? [37 words]DaveDec 3, 2016 17:41234480
Good clarifications [80 words]AnonJun 18, 2013 23:58207086
1Soft intellectualism [130 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Alan MeyerMay 24, 2013 23:39206312
1Tough test for soft intellectualism [158 words]PrashantDec 5, 2016 02:58206312
I'm sorry Dr Pipes [168 words]Will EmbersMay 21, 2013 14:53206213
2The liberal age revisited [118 words]dhimmi no moreMay 24, 2013 09:11206213
I disagree, Dhimmi [153 words]Will EmbersMay 26, 2013 20:30206213
3Islam and history [587 words]dhimmi no moreMay 27, 2013 09:08206213
6التكرار يعلم الحمار and Muslims in the west [118 words]dhimmi no moreMay 20, 2013 06:41206187
Puzzled When Jews Attack Peters [55 words]DaveDec 18, 2011 10:15191817
1Islamists like to "play" victim [98 words]PrashantDec 20, 2011 07:10191817
You, Dr. Pipes speak the truth, ! [25 words]Phil GreendAug 8, 2010 08:13176486
Certain Islamic positions may indeed be anti-democratic and anti-patriotic [435 words]TedAug 7, 2010 15:06176461
Ebrahim "eboo" Patel being invited by B Hussein Obama [466 words]SvetlanatchkahFeb 12, 2009 00:40150289
Excellent Reference about Ebrahim Eboo Patel [44 words]YnnatchkahAug 1, 2008 14:13136064
1Eboo Patel [39 words]sam patelAug 16, 2008 13:13136064
Deeply appreciate your kindness [149 words]YnnatchkahAug 16, 2008 19:07136064
typical [122 words]VijayAug 11, 2010 06:54136064
Ad absurdo [141 words]Rebecca MouldsJul 20, 2008 01:34135417
My view on ABC News [124 words]Straight_Talk_LuigiJul 19, 2008 23:26135410
Feeling very offended [93 words]NancyNov 21, 2008 12:42135410
Islam and Democracy [299 words]moDec 13, 2007 17:17116129
Iran doesn't elect there rules, they elect there PR representative [104 words]AndyDec 30, 2009 01:13116129
2Re: Want to deny American Muslims the vote? [99 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
USNov 26, 2007 12:38114945
Denying females, muslims and jews the right to vote [176 words]James BurkeNov 3, 2007 09:00112997
People make "Carnaval" to find ways... [209 words]YnnatchkahJul 8, 2007 04:01103224
islamofascism [10 words]jon purizhanskyJan 14, 2007 15:2572866
Doctor Pipes and the Jyllands- Posten [154 words]Octavio JohansonNov 21, 2006 16:0966864
Rhetoric and the term "Islamists" [578 words]Tim CleavelandAug 30, 2006 13:1654391
Christian Genocide? [66 words]August WilliamsJul 20, 2008 18:4754391
Mearsheimer and Walt [104 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
B.A. KirkenMar 20, 2006 15:1440817
Amazing! [834 words]Mrs4Jun 22, 2006 13:4740817
1From Campus to Caliphate - University to Ummah [71 words]Ben van de PolderMar 12, 2006 01:4939802
Doesn't History Say No? [107 words]Solomon2Mar 1, 2006 13:3438516
Facts versus opinion [69 words]Norman WandFeb 21, 2006 18:5336876
everyone can tell their own opinion [29 words]calizo joyJan 16, 2007 02:2736876
DENIAL OF INVOLVEMENT [112 words]donvanFeb 20, 2006 15:5736581
Nor is this a clash of civilizations [121 words]Alain RobertFeb 17, 2006 23:0236160
Jyllands-Posten [48 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Peter KofodFeb 9, 2006 04:2234567
Just saw that [13 words]UKFeb 6, 2006 19:5533987

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Rhetoric and the term "Islamists" by Tim Cleaveland

Email me if someone replies to my comment

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 and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List


eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)