Why We Need Words Like ‘Islamist’

Pages: 1 2

Is the problem Islam or Islamism? Muslims or Islamists?

These and related questions regularly foster debate (see the exchange between Robert Spencer and Andrew McCarthy for a recent example). The greatest obstacle on the road to consensus is what such words imply; namely, that Islamism and Islamists are “bad,” and Islam and Muslims are good (or simply neutral).

Some observations in this regard:

Islamism is a distinct phenomenon and, to an extent, different from historic Islam. The staunch literalness of today’s Islamists is so artificial and anachronistic that, if only in this way, it contradicts the practices of medieval Muslims, which often came natural and better fit their historical context.

More to the point, for all their talk that they are out to enact the literal example of the early Muslims, today’s Islamists often permit and forbid things that their forbears did not, simply because, like it or not, they are influenced. As Daniel Pipes observes:

Whereas traditional Islam’s sacred law is a personal law, a law a Muslim must follow wherever he is, Islamism tries to apply a Western-style geographic law that depends on where one lives. Take the case of Sudan, where traditionally a Christian was perfectly entitled to drink alcohol, for he is a Christian, and Islamic law applies only to Muslims. But the current regime has banned alcohol for every Sudanese. It assumes Islamic law is territorial because that is the way a Western society is run.

That said, there is no denying that Islam’s sacred law, Sharia—the backbone of mainstream Islam—is intrinsically problematic. One example: hostility for Muslim apostates—from ostracizing them to executing them—is simply a part of the religion of Islam, historically and doctrinally. The same can be said about the duty of jihad and the subjugation of religious minorities and females.

Accordingly, while there is room for the word Islamism—in that it is a distinct phenomenon—that does not mean Islam proper is trouble-free. In fact, sometimes Islam’s traditional teachings are more problematic than Islamist teachings. For instance, during the “Arab spring,” many traditional Muslim sheikhs correctly pointed out that Sharia commands Muslims to obey their leader, even if he is unjust and tyrannical, as long as he is a Muslim, while Western-influenced Islamists were making the “humanitarian argument” against tyrants, one that had little grounding in Sharia.

At this point, one might argue that use of words like “Islamist,” while valid, are ultimately academic and have the potential further to confuse the layman. However, what is often missed in this debate is the true significance of such words: they satisfy a linguistic need—the need to differentiate and be precise—without which meaningful talk becomes next to impossible.

Consider: even the severest critic of Islam will concede that not all who are labeled “Muslim”—well over a billion people—are “the enemy.” Well, then, how shall we differentiate them in speech? What words shall we use?

One might insist that those whom we call “Islamists” should be called “Muslims,” while the majority whom we call “Muslims”—and which often indicate “moderate Muslims”—should not even be factored in the equation: after all, if they are not upholders of Sharia, then they are not practicing “true Islam” and do not count as Muslims.

Whatever the merits of this definition, by contradicting the ingrained and widespread usage of the word “Muslim,” it is impractical and counterproductive.

Say I am discussing Egypt, which has some 70 million Muslims, and I want to refer to those particular Muslims seeking to enforce full Sharia (the “bad guys”): with what noun shall I distinguish them from the rest of Egypt’s Muslims? Or shall I simply call them “Muslims” and assume that everyone understands by “Muslim” I mean those Muslims?

Such an approach would imply that Egypt’s 70 million Muslims are all out to enforce Sharia—which is not true—and push the many undecided, potential allies in the West, whose common sense rejects such an exaggerated assertion, over the wrong side of the fence into thinking that no Muslim is the enemy.

Pages: 1 2

  • Gunner57

    We need stop using words like "Islamist" in order to ubfuscate the true meaning of Islam. The word "Muslim" is the only correct way of describing those whole follow Muhammad, his wicked ways and his evil theology Islam.

    • OFrederiksen

      You didn't get it. Read the article again

  • Gunner57

    Turkish PM Erogan said it best, "Islam is Islam". There are those practice it. They are called Muslims not Islamists. What a bunch of politically correct nonsense to say otherwise.

  • TheMuslim

    This article is complete nonsense. Islamist / Islamism refers specifically to POLITICAL ISLAM. An ideology that believes Islamic values / sharia'a should be used to run the state / country. As a result it becomes completely correct to say things like "the Islamists won 70% of parliamentary seats". Most of the remaining 30% in the Egyptian parliament are also MUSLIMS but not ISLAMIST. Some of these are Muslim Liberals, Muslim Socialists, Muslim Nasserists. They are still Muslim by religion but do not espouse the idea that Islamic values should be used to run the State. I'm quite shocked that the author who is widely published on everything Islam failed to see this / point this out. All he had to was Google it / check the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

    • the infidel

      What are you talking about? Ibrihim says exactly that! he argues that we should use Islamist to point out that they got 70 per cent of the seats, instead of just saying Muslim. Learn how to read.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Look dude…there is only Islam and instead of a religion it is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology. In fact, the religious aspect of Islam makes up about less than 10 percent of Islam and the other in excess of 90 percent of Islam is about jihad, conquest, harsh and degrading dhimmitude, and draconian totalitarianism.

      In addition, per the dictates of the sixth and most important pillar of Islam, every Muslim on earth has an obligatory duty to fight jihad in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme. Therefore, all MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MULSIMS ON EARTH are jihadists. A tiny minority of them are violent jihadists, while the vast overwhelming majority of them are covert non-violent jihadists, and the few that are not jihadists are not Muslim at all, but instead blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of MAINSTREAM ORTHDOX ISLAM must be executed.

      Thus, that 25 percent of Muslims that didn't support the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salifists are not Muslims at all, but instead blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX ISLAM should be executed. Of course, they aren't executed because they aren't stupid enough to openly admit that they are really blasphemous apostates trapped in an Islamic hellhole.

      • Western Canadian

        Amazing the way you puke up the same pathetic load of rubbish pretty much every time you post, not realizing how ignorant you are, compared to most of the people on this board.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          What's really amazing is besides demonstrating that you are hopelessly married to the religion of PC multiculturalism and conspicuously not being mentally competent enough to counter or challenge anything I write, is besides being a chronic Muslim apologizer and sympathizer, you are also incapable of doing anything else other than unleashing personal insults, immature invectives, and cyberstalking me along with your fellow leftwing Internet buddies while pretending to be conservatives.

          • Western Canadian

            Nothing I have posted here, or anywhere else, has ever demonstrated anything that is even remotely pc. You are, again, lying. As I have shredded your sickeningly ignorant and pathetic blather about terrorism not being islamic, or your self preening swill about no one (but you) being aware of stealth jihad, your claim that you are unchallenged is proof of your mental instability. NPD with a vengeance. I have never apologized for, sympathized with, or defended islam or muslims, but have described and condemned them quite harshly. You are again lying. Lets face it, you have to lie, as you have not even a single argument of substance.

            Your screaming, shrieking like a girl claims that you are a target of insults, invective, and cyber-stalking, is again merely proof that you are mentally ill.

        • Reader

          Even more amazing is how this Obama yo Mama guy seems to think he and his rants matter. Get a life…

        • ObamaYoMoma

          I see your crew of fellow leftwing cyberstalkers and conservative masqueraders have been out in full force today.

          • Western Canadian

            Isn’t it amazing the way this pathetic loser imagines (fantasizes? hopes for?) about being cyber-stalked? And he doesn’t even know how to spell the word. Typical of the weak minded sort that he is.

      • OFrederiksen

        What should we, acording to you, call those Muslims who are Muslims by name only, and not even by choise?
        Try looking into how to become a Muslim. There are several methods. Most are non-voluntary – practically choiseless. And then look into how to change your Muslim label into whatever your own choise might be.

    • Fred Dawes

      Stop beheading little kids and raping white grils all over the world stop your murder or we may someday toss off over happy face, if you know what i mean monkey of islam, our government of the wast are controlled by the world banking system once we can toss that off our backs we can deal with evil once and for all with a war to end all wars and remove the Global monkey ideals and make a reaL END TO THE ASSAULT Of the people of good over evil monkeys of the east. THINK H-BOMB by the way we low life Americans build one 75 years ago why is it the Iran monkeys can't???? can it be islam is stupid??? and can the jews start using the big one and remove the monkeys from the earth? and jews you have 300 h-bombs why not use some???

  • Mark

    Maybe you should read the article first. Ibrahim offers several examples of how using "Muslim" can actually backfire by minimizing the threat of Islam.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      In other words, like the writer you believe that Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by tiny minority of extremists. Thus, you also believe like the writer in the existence of Islamist Muslims, radical Muslims, extremist Muslims, fundamentalist Muslims, supremacist Muslims, and whatever other iterations PC multiculturalists can dream up to dupe the masses.

      I hate to rain on your naïve parade, but the existence of Islamist Muslims, radical Muslims, extremist Muslims, fundamentalist Muslims, supremacist Muslims, and moderate Muslims, exactly like the existence of radical Islam, extremist Islam, fundamentalist Islam, supremacist Islam, moderate Islam, and peaceful Islam are all false PC multicultural myths. Indeed, there are only MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS and MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX ISLAM.

      • Western Canadian

        Amazing, your latest post is pathetic, even for you. It is hard to tell if you are merely stupid, dishonest, or both.
        You fabricate a lie about the writer, and pretend you know what he believes (as you steadfastly refuse to read the bloody article….):

        ‘In other words, like the writer you believe that Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by tiny minority of extremists’

        How you managed to create such a load of utter crap while referring to a man who has knowledge so far beyond your own pathetic efforts, is truly amazing. You are the most ignorant loser on this board, but it does not stop you from displaying your arrogance and stupidity, it probably encourages them.

        ‘false PC multicultural myths’ I would suggest you take several courses pertaining to writing….. start with remedial reading, and perhaps in 20 or 30 years, you might manage to consider (but would still flunk) a course or two on basic grammar … as for advanced composition, forget it, you will never be even a incompetent hack writer….. stuck forever at the sad and pathetic level of your posts.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          You fabricate a lie about the writer, and pretend you know what he believes (as you steadfastly refuse to read the bloody article….):

          Dude…I've been reading this guy's articles since you were in diapers. You don't know what you are talking about. In fact, this article is very disappointing because this guy appears to be intellectually dishonest or his association with Daniel Pipes has distorted his mind.

          Moreover, I quoted passages from the damn article all the way through my post. Hence, put your money where your loon mouth is and read my entire post before like a moron you falsely accuse me of not reading the damn article.

          'In other words, like the writer you believe that Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by tiny minority of extremists'

          How you managed to create such a load of utter crap while referring to a man who has knowledge so far beyond your own pathetic efforts, is truly amazing. You are the most ignorant loser on this board, but it does not stop you from displaying your arrogance and stupidity, it probably encourages them.

          'false PC multicultural myths' I would suggest you take several courses pertaining to writing….. start with remedial reading, and perhaps in 20 or 30 years, you might manage to consider (but would still flunk) a course or two on basic grammar … as for advanced composition, forget it, you will never be even a incompetent hack writer….. stuck forever at the sad and pathetic leve l of your posts.

          Again, conspicuously you aren't mentally competent enough to challenge me on anything I write. Again, as always you only issue hit and run personal insults and childish invectives while condemning my writing at the same time you demonstrate that your own piss poor writing is utterly pathetic. Why don't you go play harass the conservatives with your fellow leftwing cyberstalkers on some other conservative website. You morons already have had enough fun trying to harass me to no avail.

          • Western Canadian

            “You fabricate a lie about the writer, and pretend you know what he believes (as you steadfastly refuse to read the bloody article….):

            Dude…I’ve been reading this guy’s articles since you were in diapers. You don’t know what you are talking about. In fact, this article is very disappointing because this guy appears to be intellectually dishonest or his association with Daniel Pipes has distorted his mind.

            Moreover, I quoted passages from the damn article all the way through my post. Hence, put your money where your loon mouth is and read my entire post before like a moron you falsely accuse me of not reading the damn article.”

            You didn’t quote him even once, you pathetic lying loser. Not even once.

            “Again, conspicuously you aren’t mentally competent enough to challenge me on anything I write. Again, as always you only issue hit and run personal insults and childish invectives while condemning my writing at the same time you demonstrate that your own piss poor writing is utterly pathetic. Why don’t you go play harass the conservatives with your fellow leftwing cyberstalkers on some other conservative website. You morons already have had enough fun trying to harass me to no avail.”

            I, and others have exposed you as the ignorant and pathetic fool that you are. Your sickening projection of your own failings onto others, is again indicative of your mental illness, as is your pathetic claim of being cyber-stalked… You don’t even know how to spell the word.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            More cyberstalking. You and your fellow liberal cyberstalker friends are obsessed. 4

        • Reader

          Western Civ – Why waste your time on this fool? His claim that he responded to Mr. Ibrahim's article is laughable at best – all straw-man arguments.

  • RUI

    "political Islam": redundant term. An ideology that is both religious and political is a state ideology. Islam is a state. It can ever only be political.
    I think if there would be a distinction, it should be between devout muslims (the bad guys) and cultural muslims (the "who-cares?" guys).

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Consider: even the severest critic of Islam will concede that not all who are labeled “Muslim”—well over a billion people—are “the enemy.” Well, then, how shall we differentiate them in speech? What words shall we use?

    I disagree vehemently with that absurdity. If Muslims aren't the enemy, then they aren't Muslims. They are instead blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of mainstream orthodox Islam should be executed.

    For instance, Muslims living in the West that for all intents and purposes appear to be perfectly peaceful and moderate, are nonetheless covert non-violent jihadists living in the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme and are therefore fulfilling their holy obligatory duty to wage jihad in the cause of Allah at the same time. As covert non-violent jihad is non-violent and deceptive by design. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be effective or work.

    Not to mention as well that there isn't a single place in the world where mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage has occurred where there has been a successful outcome, as Muslims never ever migrate to the West or anywhere else for that matter to assimilate and integrate.

    In addition, I don't believe that Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, for example, isn't a covert non-violent jihadist for one second, as he claims to be a moderate Muslim and a Muslim reformer. However, the existence of moderate Muslims and a moderate Islam are both PC multicultural myths, and Muslim reformists are blasphemous apostates that again per the dictates of mainstream orthodox Islam should be executed.

    Not to mention that Islam is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology with less than 10 percent of it if that much being religious and the other in excess of 90 percent of it consisting of jihad, conquest, harsh and degrading dhimmitude, and draconian totalitarianism. Thus, Islam is about as reformable as communism is reformable.

    Meanwhile, where is Jasser's following? How many Muslims has he turned into “reformed” Muslims and Muslims who would instantly become blasphemous apostates the instant they decided to become reformed? They are non-existent! Jasser obviously is not what he purports himself to be and is in reality a phony Islamic taqiyya artist.

    Thus, when Jasser pretends to be a neo-con on steroids who advocates democratizing the Islamic world and insisting that he is the voice of moderacy in Islam, it is obvious to me that he is a covert non-violent jihadist and a very good taqiyya artist that has managed to dupe even people who consider themselves to be authorities on the Islamic threat.

    One might insist that those whom we call “Islamists” should be called “Muslims,” while the majority whom we call “Muslims”—and which often indicate “moderate Muslims”—should not even be factored in the equation: after all, if they are not upholders of Sharia, then they are not practicing “true Islam” and do not count as Muslims.

    The existence of radical Muslims, extremist Muslims, fundamentalist Muslims, supremacist Muslims, Islamists, and moderate Muslims, exactly like the existence of radical Islam, extremist Islam, fundamentalist Islam, supremacist Islam, peaceful Islam, and moderate Islam are all false PC multicultural myths. As there are only mainstream orthodox Muslims and mainstream orthodox Islam in direct contradiction to the Left's false religion of PC Multiculturalism.

    Indeed, the sixth and most important pillar of Islam makes it an obligatory duty for every Muslim on earth to fight jihad in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme, which involves both violent means, such as the 9/11 violent jihad attacks, and non-violent means, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of infiltration, stealth demographic conquest, and the hijacking of the West's Middle East Studies Departments at our major colleges and universities to dumb down our elites to name a few.

    Therefore, per the sixth and most important pillar of Islam, ALL MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS ON EARTH are jihadists. A tiny minority of them are violent jihadists, while the vast overwhelming majority of them are covert non-violent jihadists, and the few that are not jihadists are not Muslims at all, but instead blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX ISLAM must be executed.

    Say I am discussing Egypt, which has some 70 million Muslims, and I want to refer to those particular Muslims seeking to enforce full Sharia (the “bad guys”): with what noun shall I distinguish them from the rest of Egypt’s Muslims? Or shall I simply call them “Muslims” and assume that everyone understands by “Muslim” I mean those Muslims?

    –continued below

  • ObamaYoMoma

    That's a completely false dichotomy. All Muslims are Muslims and the ones that are not are silenced blasphemous apostates, since in Islam blasphemy and apostasy are a capital offenses. Indeed, there is no freedom of conscience or freedom period in Islam. Islam is 100 percent totalitarian.

    The only distinction to be made between Muslims is that a tiny minority of Muslims are violent jihadists, while the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims are covert non-violent jihadists. Of course, all Muslims are non-violent jihadists until they perpetrate some sort of violence in the cause of Allah.

    The notion that the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims are moderate Muslims and only a tiny minority of them are radicals, extremists, Islamists, fundamentalists, supremacist, or whatever, is a false PC multicultural dichotomy and myth created to uphold the Lefts adherence to the false religion of PC Multiculturalism, which is a very demonstrably false ideology.

    Such an approach would imply that Egypt’s 70 million Muslims are all out to enforce Sharia—which is not true—and push the many undecided, potential allies in the West, whose common sense rejects such an exaggerated assertion, over the wrong side of the fence into thinking that no Muslim is the enemy.

    Any Muslim in Egypt and anywhere else in the world for that matter that isn't Sharia compliant isn't a Muslim at all but instead a blasphemous apostate. As each Muslim totally, completely, and unconditionally submits to the will of Allah, where the freedom of conscience is forbidden and where apostasy and blasphemy are capital offenses. After all, what is Sharia if it isn't the divine will of Allah?

    In other words, according to the writer of this nonsense the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world are non-Sharia compliant peaceful and moderate Muslims, and only a tiny minority of Muslims in the world are actual Islamists, extremists, radicals, fundamentalists, supremacist, or whatever else. Give me a break! Islam is 100 percent totalitarian and there is no freedom of conscience in Islam where Islam is concerned.

    Is that why in country after country and anywhere and everywhere mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage is occurring today in the West, just like clockwork the vast overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants flat out refuse to assimilate and integrate and instead form Muslim only enclaves that over time morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia as fifth columns and tiny independent statelets within states and in direct contravention to the laws of the states in which they reside? Indeed, is that also why democracy took off in Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Egypt, and Hamastan like gangbusters?

    If political correct writers and journalists want to make a distinction between Sharia compliant jihadist Muslims and blasphemous apostates that are anything but Muslims, then call those Muslims that aren't Sharia compliant what they really are: Muslim apostates or Muslim dissidents. Don't invent new terms like Islamist to camouflage the truth!

    Consider this recent news headline: “Egypt’s Islamists secure 75 percent of parliament.” Most informed readers would gather from this that Egypt is taking a turn for the worst. But what a redundant headline it would be had it simply read “Egypt’s Muslims secure 75 percent of parliament.”

    That's an utterly absurd argument to continue duping the masses with false PC multicultural myths and misconceptions about Islam more than it is anything else. In other words, according to this writer and also GWB, by the way, Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, and if anyone is dumb enough to believe that demonstrably false garbage, then they are also obviously dumb enough to believe that Bill Clinton was truthful when he claimed that when he smoked marijuana he didn't really inhale.

    Same with these reports: “U.S. official meets with Egypt’s Islamists” and “Islamist Named Speaker of Egypt House.” Many readers will take from these titles that an American official is meeting with the “bad guys,” and that one of them has become house-speaker. Think of how meaningless these headlines would be if they had simply read “U.S. official meets with Egypt’s Muslims” and “Muslim Named Speaker of Egypt House.”

    Actually, all Muslims are the eternal mortal enemies of all non-Muslim unbelievers or they aren't Muslims at all but instead blasphemous apostates. Of course, that doesn't mean that they will automatically and instantly try to behead all non-Muslim unbelievers while hollering Allahu Akbar. Indeed, if that were the case, then covert non-violent jihad for the purpose of deception and stealth demographic conquest would inevitably always fail and be non-effective.

    –continued below

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Hence, if it weren't for PC multicultural moonbats pretending to be competent writers and journalists, most Americans would automatically already understand by now that all Muslims are the eternal mortal enemies of all non-Muslim unbelievers. In fact, Islam would already be outlawed, mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage that is really covert non-violent jihad for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme, would already have been banned and reversed, the thousands of mosques and madrassas in America would already be converted into something else, the Muslim/Leftists alliance that constitutes our MESA Nostra Middle East Studies Departments at our major colleges and universities would already be cleaned out, and Sharia finance would also be outlawed and banned.

    Is it not better, then, to utilize the accepted terms—”Islamist,” “Muslim radical,” “Islamic supremacist,” “Islamic fundamentalist,” anything other than the generic “Muslim”—simply to be understood, at least in certain contexts?

    The answer is no. Only if you want to continue pedaling the same false PC multicultural myths and misconceptions about Islam to Americans that you moonbats have been selling for years and the same ones, by the way, that led to the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

    How could you say that it is better. That's like arguing that it is better to be delusional rather than rational. It's an absurd argument to say the least and I can't believe that you are actually dumb enough to be making that insane argument and on FPM no less. Luckily for you this isn't the Daily Kos because we could vote you off the site.

    Here's a much better and saner argument: Drop the PC multicultural absurdities and stick to the truth.

    but rather how we can intelligibly and practically talk about them.

    What's intelligent about propagating lies, myths, and misconceptions about our eternal mortal enemies? Nothing!

    Nor is a word like “Islamist”—which thrusts the name of the religion center-stage—necessarily “politically correct”: consider how Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Stockton could not even bring himself to agree that al-Qaeda is acting out “violent Islamist extremism,” fearful that describing “our adversary as Islamic with any set of qualifiers” implies we are at “war with Islam.”

    Another absurd argument if there ever was one. I like the word Islamic much better than the word Islamist because the word Islamist is used to dupe the masses regarding the true nature of Islam, and as for as our good assistant secretary goes, he should have been fired on the spot as he is more than just a little incompetent.

    Perhaps the greatest argument justifying use of words like “Islamist” is that Muslims themselves regularly use them to signify their more “adamant” coreligionists (“al-Islamiyin“). Indeed, even the Islamists use such words to distinguish themselves from the average Muslim, such as Egypt’s “Salafis.” They have no other choice—if they want to be understood.

    Give me a break, Muslims don't even speak English. Moreover, up until a few years ago the word Islamist meant someone who specialized in the study and education of Islam. That is until our Middle East Studies Departments at our major elite colleges and universities became hijacked and co-opted by Saudi and Gulf State Emir petro-dollars and Leftist totalitarians. Now the word has since been usurped by PC multiculturalists and used to describe radicals, extremists, Islamists, fundamentalists, supremacists, or whatever non-existent Muslims that altogether constitutes false PC multicultural myths in accordance with the Left's adherence to the false religion of PC Multiculturalism.

    In short, the need for words like “Islamist” is less to make a doctrinal distinction and more to make a practical, linguistic distinction.

    No, not really. It is used to continue proliferating the false PC multicultural myths and misconceptions about Islam, such as Islam is a Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, that both exceedingly fantasy based and incredibly counterproductive nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were based upon and that preordained both of them to inevitably fail and become the two greatest strategic blunders ever in American history.

    –continued below

    • Western Canadian

      Truly amazing…. The poor quality of your failed efforts at writing, is staggering. Your poor phrasing, as well as redundant and repetitious style, is so incredibly garish that it almost equals your inability to think straight, or employ anything resembling logic or even common sense.

      You do have a purpose here though (besides being an annoying jerk..), and that is to serve as an example of how degenerate the american education system, at its worst, really is.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Speaking of a failed education system and piss poor writing, again you are so mentally incompetent that you can't challenge me on anything I write, only issue more personal insults and adolescent invectives. Why don't you go jump in the lake with your fellow leftwing cyberstalkers moonbat!

        • Western Canadian

          ‘Speaking of a failed education system and piss poor writing,’ dwelling on your own shortcomings again, I see. Rather odd for a NPD victim, but you are odd even one so afflicted. As for being mentally incompetent, that would again be an accurate assessment of your, you are a pathetic raving lunatic of the first order. Ignorant, and pathetically stupid at your very best, and you are seldom at your very best.

          Far from failing to challenge you on any of the pathetic drivel you try to pass off as writing, others and I have run circles around you, and made you look like the pompous bloviating ass that you are.

          Two examples? Your sickening claim that terrorism is un-islamic etc, that you have repeated ad infinitem, ad nauseum. Completely and utterly destroyed by quoting the pervert mo himself, and a current pakistani jihadist military member. Shredded you, totally.

          Your patheric claim that stealth jihad is something no one is aware of or opposing? It has been pointed out to you several times that people are both very much aware of it, and are actively opposing it. You lose again, you pathetic lout.

          As for personal name calling and adolescent invective?? The bulk of your pathetic efforts include large portions of the same. Rather like the koran, which was also created by another lunatic. Gee, you and mo, together again.

          Your sickening accusations of cyber-stalking, and laughable suggestions that people are trying to coerce you…. Definite proof of tinfoil hat club membership.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            More cyberstalking. You and your fellow liberal cyberstalker friends are obsessed. 1

          • Western Canadian

            No, again an example of how truly pathetic and ignorant you are. You don’t know what the word cyber-stalker means, and you don’t even know how to spell it. So, how much do you spend on tinfoil to line your hat with, each month??

      • Reader

        Amen, Western Canadian. Couldn't have said it better. But you have to admit his stupidity is amusing!

        • OFrederiksen

          Not any longer, only annoying

      • Reader

        Too funny! Ibrahim correctly pointed out that even Muslims use terms like Islamist, and he even wrote it, (al-islamiyin in Arabic) to which obama yo mama says "Give me a break, they don't even speak English"!
        Hilarious ignorant ass

        • OFrederiksen

          See, THAT is PC at it's best – ignoring what the Muslims themselves say, and keep ranting ones own ideas without considerations of any kind

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Too funny! Ibrahim correctly pointed out that even Muslims use terms like Islamist, and he even wrote it, (al-islamiyin in Arabic) to which obama yo mama says "Give me a break, they don't even speak English"!
          Hilarious ignorant ass

          That's his translation moron! Meanwhile, up until a short time ago the word Islamist was used to describe people that specialized in the study and education of Islam. However, once our Middle East Studies Departments got usurped by Saudi petro-dollars and delusional leftists, not only were those Islamists intentionally marginalized, but to add insult to injury, the word Islamist was usurped and used as another term for describing so-called radical Muslims, which in reality are mainstream orthodox Muslims. Don't lose your day job, because you will have a hard time finding another one, especially in this Obama economy.

          • Tired of Idiots

            Wrong, moron. "Islamicist" referred to scholars, not "Islamist."
            And actually, yes, in Arabic, speakers use the word Islamiyyin (translated in English to "Islamists") to refer to those Muslims seeking to enforce Sharia. They, like the author points out, all know they need a word to differntiate the average Muslim from the Islamist or Salafist.
            Oh wait, all this is over your head, since every single Muslim is actively working to conquer the world! (heaven forbid we think that some of them are more concerned with, umm, I don't know, providing food and shelter for their familes in their third world countries…) you are an ass clown, obama mama

  • ObamaYoMoma

    refer to a billion people, many of whom identify with Islam only on a cultural or heritage level;

    If that were true, then why has mass Muslim immigration to the West turned into an unmitigated disaster everywhere in the world it's occurring? Why did democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Egypt, Hamastan, and everywhere else in the Islamic world fail so miserably?

    Indeed, with respect to Egypt, why did the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists win almost 75% of the recent voting in Egypt? Why do 84% of Egyptians support the death penalty for apostates, 82% support stoning adulterers, 95% say that it is good that Islam plays a large role in politics, 82% favor stoning adulterers, 77% favor whippings and cutting off the hands of thieves and robbers? Is it because Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists? I don't believe so. You may want to continue pedaling that nonsense, but it is people like you that should be marginalized from society. Not people like me speaking out and telling the truth about Islam.

    • Fred Dawes

      You can see thank you.

  • randy

    What about the abuse and murder of native americans by christians as thier land was being stolen. The left overs were rounded up and put on reserves. All christian religions should be shut down.

    • Western Canadian

      You’ve managed to forget to take your meds again, I see.

      • Reader

        Seriously, the consistency in foolishness of the obama yo mamas and randys on this board is tiresome.

    • Fred Dawes

      My Grandmother was Nartive and her father was a civil war vet, most so called Native that did not Kill people lived with total peace Next to whites and blacks, he was not killed by a white guy but was killed by some mexicans in 1899 in TX.

  • Chipper

    Whether using the word muslim or islam they are still the same. A dishonorable, lying, evil, untrustworthy bunch of satan worshipers who have no good in any part of their koran! Judge by what a man does not what he says!

  • kafirman

    I disagree with my friend Raymond Ibrahim on many accounts.

    First and foremost, usage of the term, "Islamist" creates a different boogie man and thus exculpates Islam from evil. As such, the increasing number of Egyptian Christians being slaughtered and raped in the name of Mohammad have their death accommodated by a silence that Ibrahim – whose lineage hails from Egypt – facilitates.

    Second Ibrahim's term "moderate Muslim" is a reflection of the cultural imperialism of multiculturalism. I.e., multiculturalism defines "moderation" in its own image and then projects it onto Islam. But Mohammad is the standard bearer for Islamic moderation. Per the Koran, Mohammad is the best example for all men. Given the pervasiveness of multiculturalism and the associated dehumanization by multiculturalism (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/multiculturalism_and_religiously-sanctioned_rape.html) it is important to avoid the phrase, "moderate Muslim."

    ——— continued below ———–

    • OFrederiksen

      I agree on "avoid the phrase, "moderate Muslim". It's either True Muslim = Islamist = bad guys, or Muslim = cultural label = good guys.
      Remember, a good Muslim is always a bad person. A bad Muslim is a good person.

  • kafirman

    Ibrahim writes 'Consider: even the severest critic of Islam will concede that not all who are labeled "Muslim" — well over a billion people — are "the enemy."' But consider the critic Mosab Hassan Yousef. Yousef indicates that the lukewarm and Westernized Muslims are perhaps more dangerous than bin Laden was. While I salute much of what Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is doing and I do not believe Jasser will actively participate in violent jihad, Jasser is nonetheless a strong advocate for the dehumanization that inherent to Islam. How is this so? It is because ideological warfare is more primary and more fundamental than kinetic warfare. Soft power is more important than hard power. Thus Jasser's loyalty to Islam puts a moral sheen onto evil. Thus Jasser strikes the strongest chord, the ideological cord, powerfully for Islam.

    ——– continued below ———–

  • kafirman

    On a personal note, I go out of my way to make friends with Muslims. I want to free them from the dehumanization of Islam. Muslims are the first victims of Islam.

    Thus the third point I'm trying to make is that those who vigorously identify as Muslims and project virtuous image of the evil of Islam (sexual slavery Koran 4:3, political apartheid Jizya tax Koran 9:29, sanction to offensive genocide Koran 9:5) are some of the most effective jihadists. Their jihad is subtle, yet powerful. It is ideological. It is the jihad of a moral veneer to a grotesquely evil system. I think Mosab is correct.

    Therefore what this country really needs is a political leader who will question the granting of 501(c)3 economic privilege and consequential moral sanction to an ideology which advocates, inter alia, trafficking in human persons.

    Clearly there is a difference between the violent jihadist and the milquetoasty compromised Muslim who pastes a false and palatable moral veneer onto Islam. But the best term to describe the former is "Mohammadian." As in "Egypt’s Mohammadians secured 75 percent of parliament.” The term "Mohammadian" was used by that moral champion, Winston Churchill. Yet my Word dictionary finds the term unfamiliar. The latter group, the milquetoasty and Westernized Muslims, are Muslims who's beliefs about sharia are discordant with the example and teaching of Mohammad.

    ———- continued below —————–

  • kafirman

    So then, there are Mohammadian Muslims and non-Mohammadian (phony) Muslims. But in the context of a multiculturalist media ever eager to apply the art of moral equivalency between Islam and "love your enemies," the non-Mohammadian Muslims are arguably the ones who cause the most damage to the case of liberty.

    If the mainstream media would so employ this term, "Mohammadian," Islam would be defeated without a bullet.

    Because I know Raymond cares deeply about the Egyptian Copts, it pains me to say that Raymond is obfuscating the culprit of these Coptic murders. Raymond is diffusing political pressure from being placed on Islam itself. We need leaders who will make Islam the issue and define Islam in terms of the example of Mohammad. I hope that Raymond will stop his equivocation.

    • kafirwoman

      This is just sillly! Copts are always using words like Islamist, radical, and fundamentalist. Why? Because unlike you, who has no direct experience of Egypt, they live peaceably with the majority of Muslims, and there is no sense in antagonizing them. Believ e me, if ALL Muslims in Egypt hated the Copts, Copts would have been dead A LONG TIME AGO. There's about 10 Muslims for every 1 Christian in Egypt. Seems if they were all Islamist, they could wipe out the Christians in a matter of days.
      Get a grip.

  • Matamoros

    Bravo to kafirman! He nailed it. Sir Winston had it dead right. This THING that hates us is none other than a cult…the Mohammed cult. Ali Sina, in his psychobiography of Mohammed dissects this cult and its founder with a scalpel and leaves a trail of murder, rape, pillage, hatred and war from 610 A.D. to the present day. The "Rev." Jim Jones and his cult are the present day embodiment of the Mohammed cult. Sadly, Mohammed, MHBH, (=May He Burn in Hell) didn't do us the courtesy of killing himself before his murderous band of cutthroats and psychopaths began its war of conquest against the entire world.

  • Anonymous

    So how do we get the media to start using the term Mohammadan instead of Islamist?
    O, never mind, youre just making an abstract point that is neither here nor there.

    • Fred Dawes

      Now that is a REAL IDEAL.

  • Fred Dawes

    The obama and bush boys have moved over 1 million muslims here in 10 years, ask why who wants the monkeys of Islam to doninate all people can it be our own government? can it be the boys in the banking system who wohave power over us if Islam did some how have that power of live and death over we who can still see?? Look at the facts of evil, and by the way God will not save you but action can! Long live the bill of right over the gods of the east.

  • Anonymous

    Excellent article by Ray Ibrahim – subtle but important distinction!