Tiny minority of excremists vs “Islamists”
In “Islam Vs. Islamism: A Case for Wishful Thinkers,” by Walid Shoebat at PJ Media, May 18, Shoebat provides a full case for not using the misleading and inaccurate term “Islamism.” I wrote on this question here; Pamela Geller here; and Andrew Bostom here.
“Our killer question is ‘How do you propose to defeat Islamism?’ Those who make all Islam their enemy not only succumb to a simplistic and essentialist illusion but they lack any mechanism to defeat it.”
This is what historian and Middle East analyst Daniel Pipes asks in his recent Washington Times article.
To support his argument, Pipes makes an unsubstantiated claim that a majority of Muslims are moderate and that Islamism is only,
Now we have Rod Liddle from the Spectator going down that same road:
To draw a line between moderate and extremist Islam is to miss the point
Islam is a noble and peaceable faith which we must all respect, whereas Islamism is a corrosive and aggressive political ideology, and the two — weirdly — have nothing to do with one another. This is a patent nonsense, a delusion, and while it may work as a form of crowd control, it will not help us win this battle.
Rod Liddle in the Spectator gets close, but he also misses the point. No Muslim ever uses terms like “Islamism” (Islam is Islam and that’s it, said Tayyip Erdogan, PM of Turkey) and what we call ‘moderate Muslims” usually turn into nasty little headchoppers when we scratch the surface.
We would be well advised to see Muslims the way they see themselves, not like we would like to see them.
Rod Liddle also claims:
“ It is indisputable that the vast majority of British Muslims were as disgusted by the events in Woolwich as the rest of us were ”– really?
Why is that “indisputable?” Because the alternative would be ‘too horrible to contemplate?’
I daresay the vast majority of Muslims in Britain was not disgusted at all. Prove me wrong!