web analytics
July 30, 2015 / 14 Av, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


Who is an ‘Islamist’ and Why it Matters

Based on the Associated Press's definition, whom exactly can a reporter call an Islamist?
Egyptian President Mahmoud Morsi

Egyptian President Mahmoud Morsi
Photo Credit: YY

My guess is:  it will effectively apply to no one.  Although “Islamist” has been redefined to make it sound as if sharia advocates are moderates, the easily-unearthed associations of political sharia advocates with violent or Bolshevik-pattern radicals will tar all Islamists with the same brush – which, frankly, is ground truth anyway.  But since it is inconvenient truth, A.P. writers won’t be able to find a use for “Islamist.”

Why we need the term “Islamist”

And that is a real problem.  It’s not a problem because the distinction between political sharia advocates and violent cadre is strategically important; it’s a problem because distinguishing between radicalized/politicized advocacy groups and the non-radicalized/politicized mass of Muslims is important.

There are still millions of Muslims throughout the world who are not political advocates of sharia.  This doesn’t mean that such people don’t have a hazy vision of there someday being a sharia caliphate; many of them probably have that vision.  But they are no more energized to go out with heat-seeking missiles (or lawyers) and “immanentize the eschaton” than are Christians who foresee the day when Jesus will come again, or Jews who believe that they are still waiting for the Messiah.

There must remain a political space in which the non-radicalized can continue to be non-radicalized.  The West is uniquely equipped to provide it, and it is in both our interests – the West’s and the non-radicalized Muslim world’s – that we do so.  Modern Muslims have lived peacefully in the West for decades, because most of them have not been “Islamists”:  advocates of reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam.  Islamist leaders do not acknowledge the distinction between themselves and the non-radicalized Muslim citizens of Western nations – but the Western nations must.  It is in our best interest not only to acknowledge it but to ensure that it is a basis for policy.

The broader basis for a winning Western approach

In my view, the use of the “Islamist” distinction, while it is important, should not be the main focus of Western dialogue on this matter.  What must be most important to us is to enforce traditional Western beliefs about freedom, tolerance, the rule of law and the underpinnings of civilization.  This doesn’t mean forcing them on others; it means protecting them within our borders, advocating them in international and cross-cultural discourse, and privileging them, alongside other considerations, in our decisions about foreign relations and trade.

Western freedom, including freedom of intellectual inquiry, freedom of speech, and freedom of public advocacy, has never been the norm around the world.  It always requires commitment and positive protection, because it is always under attack.  Remembering that fact is essential in considering our relations with the Islamic world, so that we will not get our feelings hurt or give in to fearful, unwary surprise when there is push-back against our level of freedom.

America’s Founders and our British forebears, believed that men have a natural right to these freedoms.  They also believed that when this right is honored and protected, the freedom that results brings an unparalleled payoff in social goods.  People are at their best when their freedoms are protected.  They live in peace with their neighbors; they have a hopeful view of the future; they produce, trade, invent, enjoy, and give with unequaled fervor and success; and they exercise more tolerance than they do under more restrictive social and governmental organizations.  The Founders did not prize rights and freedoms merely as negative injunctions against the overuse of state power.  They prized them because of their unique positive results.

If we do not find in ourselves the same belief, we will lose our freedoms.  We must believe in them, to such an extent that we advocate, enforce, and defend them even when some claim that they are offensive or racist.

We must have the confidence to affirm – and act as if – our freedoms are not offensive or racist.  We must do this without caveat or exception.  This means, for example, that it is not offensive or racist for the prevailing society to enforce safety for women walking the city streets unveiled, regardless of who is a majority in the neighborhood; nor to enforce safety for gays coming out of bars at night; or for Jews attending school (see here for a general summary of increasing attacks on Jews in Europe); or for Christians mounting a public protest; or for cartoonists who depict Mohammed in print.

About the Author:


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

4 Responses to “Who is an ‘Islamist’ and Why it Matters”

  1. Yehuda Cohen says:

    Islam's prophet/founder was Muhammad; so, anyone following Muhammad is an Islamist. Now that we are living in the area where people are calling black to be white and white to be black, then every thing is up for grabs as befits the insanity of Islam for it was a very wise and righteous sage, the Rambam, who stated in his letter to the Yemenite Jews in the year 1172, that Muhammad was a false prophet and insane.

  2. Dode Wed says:

    { The antiseptic definition of Islamism approved by CAIR might apply only to Islamic theoreticians who never actually engage in political advocacy – if there are any. }
    This paragraph summarizes all article.
    and explains why Israel funded the chaos in Egypt now.

  3. Anonymous says:

    The politically incorrect truth about ISLAM.

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ RABBI DR. BERNHARD ROSENBERG

  4. Anonymous says:

    IT IS TIME TO CREATE RABBIS FOR PAMELA GELLER.

    The politically incorrect truth about ISLAM.

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ RABBI DR. BERNHARD ROSENBERG. SHAME ON THE CANADIAN POLICE. WHERE ARE THE RABBIS WITH BATZIM. I am not afraid to speak out, I AM NOT A COWARD. I HAVE SERVED AS A POLICE CHAPLAIN FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS AND NOW HAVE RANK OF CAPTAIN. Pamela Geller was invited by me to speak in my synagogue and I did not back down when threatened. RABBI DR. BERNHARD ROSENBERG

    Pamela Geller speaks in Edison, NJ at Cong. Beth-El – YouTube.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGWbiRUdRHg

    Apr 15, 2013… Pamela Geller speaks in Edison, NJ at Cong…. was asked by Rabbi Dr. Bernhard Rosenberg to give her address at his Congregation Beth-El…

    The politically incorrect truth about ISLAM.

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ RABBI DR. BERNHARD ROSENBERG

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
The White House will free Pollard but bar him from traveling to Israel for five years.
US Won’t Let Pollard Out of Country for Five Years
Latest Indepth Stories

By most accounts, the one person with the political muscle to swing enough Democratic votes to override a veto is Sen. Schumer.

The next day, in a speech in New York to the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Kerry substantially upped the ante.

In Israel, the judiciary has established itself as superior to ALL other branches of the government.

The Fifteenth Day of the month of Av became a day of national rejoicing. The moment that had seemed hopeless became the moment of Redemption.

I think the melodies in our religious services have a haunting sound to them that just permeates your guts and gets into your soul. If you have any musical inclination, I think they inspire you to compose.

Cavalier analogies to the Holocaust are unacceptable, but Huckabee’s analogy was very appropriate.

Pollard was a Jewish-head-on-a-pike for all American Jews to see and to learn the explicit lesson.

If the Iran deal passes, Obama’s WH becomes world’s leading financier of terrorism against Americans

{Originally posted to the author’s website, FirstOne Through} Some passionate and eloquent liberals have bemoaned the state of inclusiveness among Jews today. Leon Wieseltier, editor of the New Republic penned an angry piece “J Street’s Rejection Is a Scandal” about the exclusion in 2014 of J Street from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. […]

Magnanimity by Moshe Dayan, allowing Muslim control of the Temple Mount, led to today’s situation.

It was modeled upon a similar fund that had been set up by Sephardic Jews in Venice. But Amsterdam’s Dotar was initially more ambitious in scope.

Rav Aharon Margalit is a bestselling author – his book, As Long As I Live, has been translated into four languages – and a standing-room only lecturer. Both religious and non-religious audiences flock to hear him. What makes him so extraordinary? Rav Margalit is a Chasidic Jew who experienced incredible challenges from a very young […]

J Street is the vanguard (Jewish face)in support of Obama’s Vienna Accords Nuclear Deal with Iran

“I hold the woman’s place over that of men in every fundamental aspect of public and private life.”

More Articles from J. E. Dyer
Steven Joel Sotloff as a hostage of ISIS, before his beheading.

In his travels as a journalist in the Islamic world, Sotloff never referred to his Jewishness.

ZIM Piraeus in happier days. (Image: ShipSpotting.com user b47b56)

ZIM Piraeus isn’t Israeli-owned or flagged, incidentally, it is Greek operated.

Obama is transparent, if you read his oracular signs with the right key.

ISIS has no intention of “marching on” Baghdad. The Sunni affiliates of ISIS are going to disrupt life there.

Oslo’s moment of unchallenged American supremacy and the illusion of unforced global stasis, passed.

Could the Obamas be any more “let ‘em eat cake”?

The Obama administration wants to take over the short-term financial services industry.

The topics are “The Reagan Strategy,” and the “Iran Time Bomb.”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/j-e-dyer/who-is-an-islamist-and-why-it-matters/2013/04/07/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: