HERBERT LONDON
It has become fashionable among the cognoscenti to distinguish
between Islam and Islamism. In fact, the Quilliam Foundation, focused
on religious freedom, has promoted the distinction along with many
quite reputable analysts of Islamic behavior. Presumably the latter
believes in the imposition of faith over society by violence or law;
while the former rejects violence conducting itself as any other
religion might. This distinction has a hopeful ring to it since one may
embrace the faith and abandon the ideology, thereby stabilizing
presently unstable societies.
But suppose this is a distinction without a difference. After all,
the Islamist is willing to die in order to spread the faith, his death a
testament of his religious devotion. Most people would say this is
fanatical, but from the Islamists' perspective this is a tactic that
intimidates religious rivals driving them to appease or convert.
Without having to utter a threat, Jews and Christians know that any
criticism of Islam, even mild criticism, could lead to retributive
violence. This is what gives Islamism its advantage.
Islam, by contrast, is regarded as benign, a pathway to Allah like
any other religion. But is this true? Admittedly most Muslims are not
violent, yet it is also the case that violence perpetrated against
infidels is clearly suggested in the Koran. Koranic dogma indicates
there is only one true religion and its adherents have an obligation to
spread the faith.
The democratic belief in self-expression is suppressed by the
religion and the ideology. In fact, the ideology springs from the
religion. The Medina period in the Koran is fraught with violence
embodied in the Verses of The Sword and the good Muslim is one who
gives himself to the collective, the umma. Although the Koran is not
written chronologically, some assume the Mecca period or peaceful
interlude in Islamic history is what should be emphasized. Yet Muslim
scholars accept the principle of abrogation, i.e. that which comes
later is more holy than what came before. Hence, Medina trumps Mecca.
This principle confounds Western diplomats who wish to create their
own reality. In a sense it is like the difference between Hamas and
Fatah. Fatah or the PLO is willing to engage in discussion with Israeli
leaders. Photos are taken and smiles are exchanged. Nonetheless, the
goal of Fatah is clearly stated in its own documents: the extermination
of Israel with Palestinian borders from the Jordan to the
Mediterranean. Hamas is not as subtle. It will not negotiate; it will
not engage in photo opportunities, but it is firmly and unalterably
committed to the destruction of Israel. What is the real difference?
Diplomats deny intentions, just as many in the West comfort
themselves by generating false distinctions among Muslims. It should be
restated that most Muslims are not terrorists. Most are not violent.
Yet it cannot be denied that most terrorists are Muslim. It is
politically incorrect to say that, even though almost everyone in the
West knows the truth of that statement.
As a consequence, we build institutions on quicksand. We persuade
ourselves that there is a way to fix the problem by defining it in a
manner that satisfies our basic instincts. It is hard to imagine a
religion that values death over life. There is an unwillingness to
concede the underlying imperial desire in Islam is to spread caliphates
across the globe using any means necessary. The definitions speak to
us as tranquilizers. It simply feels better to deny the truth.
Unfortunately the truth does not disappear like soap bubbles. Its ugly
face appears and reappears.
Herbert London is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan
Institute and the President of the London Center for Policy Research.
He is president emeritus of Hudson Institute and author of the book
The Transformational Decade (University Press of America).
Read more:
Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/islam-vs-islamism?f=must_reads#ixzz2j7Kf2v00
Under Creative Commons License:
Attribution
No comments:
Post a Comment