Political
leaders and government officials are paid for trying to avoid,
mitigate, or manage damage to their countries. Experts and journalists
are supposed to warn about them and explain the dangers. This isn't
happening. Instead, language is being used to define
threats down to the minimum by speaking of revolutionary,
anti-American, antisemitic forces quite willing to use terrorism when it
suits them into moderates.
The latest step toward making it impossible to understand the world is a decision of
the Associated Press, the world’s biggest source of news for
English-language mass media. AP's new step, however, does not launder
all Islamism
nor does it outlaw the word “Islamism.”
We
should remember, however, that use of this word--the description of the
world's most important revolutionary movement today--is already
outlawed not only for U.S. government officials in public but also in
their internal writing.) In AP's case, you can still use the word
Islamism but not in connection with saying that this is intrinsically a
bad, extremist or dangerous thing. So it becomes a broad label like
liberal, conservative, social democratic, Christian democratic, etc. In
other words, Islamism is defined not as a radical threat but as a
full-spectrum
movement.
What
the AP's decision means is a far more limited step. It is defining
Islamism as a not necessarily militant, radical, or threatening
movement. This is significant though not as bad as the accusation being
made that it has gone much further. What has happened is that the AP
has adopted a somewhat more moderate version of Obama policy that there
are good Islamists and bad Islamists.
According to the new AP stylebook:
“An
advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering
government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists. Where
possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations:
al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc. Those who view the Quran as a
political model encompass a wide range of
Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi."
I
guess if you can get elected to office somewhere that means you can't
be a militant, extremist, or radical. Now this does reflect a basic
principle of mainstream thinking in the United States: popularity is
inversely proportionate to extremism. To win elections you must move to
the center. Without getting into how this applies to U.S. politics, that
is usually but by no means always true in democratic countries. In the
Arabic-speaking Middle East, the truth has been the exact opposite for
decades: radicalism wins out. When there are no attractive, real
solutions available, demagoguery almost always triumphs.
There are three subtle points about the AP's decision here that might be easily missed.
First,
the AP has taken a political stance of defining the Muslim Brotherhood
leadership as “mainstream politicians.” Who else might be a mainstream
politician among Islamists? The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and
Tunisia, where the organization has captured political positions through
elections? Or perhaps the Brotherhood cadre of Hamas or in Syria? Maybe
it refers to Hizballah’s politicians who now run Lebanon? Well, the
best job of camouflage has come from Turkey but then that
government--precisely because it seems moderate--has rarely been
properly braned as Islamist.
Now
it is quite true that not all Islamist movements favor violent or
terrorist tactics, at least at this moment. Yet that is not what the
Stylebook dictates. It would be absolutely reasonable to say
that the word Islamist should not be a synonym for terrorist.
Note
the wording about,”reordering government and society in accordance with
laws prescribed by Islam.” No. An Islamist is not someone who wants to
do that anymore than a democratic socialist or a liberal is a Communist.
If you want to make society a bit more Islamic, you’re not an Islamist.
The leaders of Iraq or the Palestinian Authority, for example, are not
called Islamists.
The
Islamist is a revolutionary who wants to reorder government and society
in accordance with the laws—all or almost all of them—prescribed by
Islam as they interpret it, that is in a militant, extremist,
and radical manner. That might sound like a detail but it is well known
in the Muslim-majority world that there is a huge difference between
using Islam as a basis for law and as the basis
for law. By the AP’s new definition, the Mubarak regime in Egypt, the
Fatah regime in the Palestinian Authority, and the Assad regime in
Syria—all considered to be relatively secular—are Islamist.
Second, this dictates the idea of “moderate Islamists” is valid. Would one say “moderate Communists,” or “moderate fascists?”
Consider the four synonyms for which Islamism is being outlawed:
--Fighters.
This is the most reasonable idea since it links up to the point that
not all Islamists (currently) follow the path of armed struggle. I can
accept that.
--Militant.
Well, yes of course they are militants. They seek revolutionary
transformations of their societies. They believe they are following the
word of Allah and thus cannot compromise on any major principles. Of
course, they are militant, despite any tactical mirages they spin forth.
Notice that militant is confined to al-Qaida, Hizbollah, and the
Taliban style groups. Yet a militant can easily be someone who isn’t
using violence. They are, however, seeking the fundamental
transformation of their societies and nothing less is acceptable.
--Extremist.
Is someone who wants to impose their interpretation of Sharia on the
entire society, and a very extremist interpretation of Sharia at that,
an extremist? In that sentence I am not getting into the argument of
whether Sharia must innately be extremist, but that’s certainly true for
the Islamists’ version. (If you have any doubt of that ask a genuinely
non-Islamist Muslim.)
Radical—see
above.
Remember
that getting a lot of votes does not make someone moderate. If you want
to say that radical Islamists are within the mainstream of their own
societies, that’s fine but the implication then is that the societies
themselves are militant, extremist, and radical. AP's decision,
reflecting a mistaken Western view today, is that anyone who is popular
cannot be radical.
Third,
this stance confuses radicalism/extremism/militancy with actual armed
struggle. If you have already seized state power you don’t need to wage
armed struggle any more. Such activities are now called state
repression.
Fourth,
the reclassification of Islamism is integrally related to the
misrepresentation of Islamist ideology and goals. For example, Egyptian
Muslim Brotherhood leaders, including those in official positions, daily
evince bloodthirsty antisemitism including the explicit goal of
genocide against Jews in general and wiping Israel off the map. Yet
these people are now to be seen as “mainstream politicians” who are not
radical, militant, or extremist?
When I used the term “revolutionary Islamism” or “radical Islamism”
I sought to emphasize the inherent nature of the movement, not to
suggest that there was also a separate moderate Islamism. Otherwise you
get into the ridiculous game of speaking about the "armed" wing or
"political" wing of Hamas or Hizballah or Fatah. There is no such real
distinction, only a division of labor.
What
AP is doing is a smokescreen to play the game of a fictional “moderate
Islamism” whose “mainstream politicians” constitute just another
non-radical, non-militant, non-extremist movement that just happens to
believe women are chattel, Christians have no real rights, Jews are to
be wiped out, and America is to be destroyed.
Thus, “Islamism” is not really a threat so what does it matter if it takes over more countries?
But
okay I accept the AP challenge. When you talk about the Muslim
Brotherhood and other similar parties and politicians, will you dare to
label them as radical, extremist, or militant Islamists? That is allowed by your new Stylebook. But will you do it?
And
when the Muslim Brotherhood destroys all but the thinnest semblance of
democratic practices in Egypt or when it presides over
ethnic-religious massacres in Syria will AP alter its Stylebook?
In its first test, the Boston terror attack, the AP did a lot better than some, including its competitor Reuters. One of its articles explained:
"Evidence mounted that Tsarnaev had embraced a radical, anti-American strain of Islam. Family members blamed the influence of a Muslim convert, known only to the family as Misha, for steering him toward a strict type of Islam [emphases
added]." I have no problem with these formulations, though they used
the word Islam (a religion) rather than Islamism (a political doctrine).
Not all Islam is radical and
anti-American, though all too much of it is today. But, yes, all of Islamism is radical and anti-American.
Please be subscriber 31,406 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.
By credit card: click here.
Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and
send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY
10003.
--------------------
Barry
Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His next
book,
Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the Modern Middle East, written with
Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, will be published by Yale University Press in
January 2014. His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, also published by Yale. Thirteen of his books can be read and downloaded for free at the website of the GLORIA Center including The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
Forthcoming Book: Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East (Yale University Press)
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
No comments:
Post a Comment