His column is about "Islamism," which is the ideology I (among others) call "Islamic supremacism" - a.k.a "radical" or "extremist" Islam, or even "sharia-ism" in the recent coinage of my friend Joy Brighton . . . all of us, it should be conceded, grappling for the pitch-perfect term that (we hope) justifies sidestepping the gnawing question whether Islam itself inevitably breeds aggressive Muslim groups even if it is otherwise widely construed, or at least practiced, benignly.
Daniel has previously rejected the possibility that Islamism, which is innately dictatorial, could evolve into something that approximates pluralistic democracy. He now surveys recent developments and concludes it is conceivable - not likely, but conceivable - that Islamism could evolve and improve.
To me, the developments Daniel cites are just glimmers here and there along a mostly discouraging trajectory. I will make three points, more in reaction than in direct response to his observations.
1. Only our own lower expectations of what liberal democracy is make it possible to speculate that Islamism could become borderline democratic. While Daniel mines some hopeful signs that Islamism - or at least branches of it - could be progressing away from unyielding authoritarianism, the parallel phenomenon (which is not the subject of his column) is that Western democracy is regressing away from a culture of individual liberty protected by limited government. If it now seems conceivable that Islamism could democratize, it can only be owing to modern democracy's accommodation of more centralized and intrusive government.
2. The only conclusion of Daniel's that I have a real quarrel with is his assertion that
Islamism has significantly evolved over the past 13 years. As recently as 2001, its adherents were synonymous with criminals, terrorists, and revolutionaries.I think this conflates Islamism with our perception of Islamism. Personally, I don't believe Islamism has materially changed at all. Instead, beginning about 21 years ago with the bombing of the World Trade Center, there was a vigorous effort on the part of progressive policy-makers and thinkers - an effort that still persists - to convince the public that the only "radical" Muslims were violent jihadists (who were incongruously portrayed as both "extremist" Muslims and practitioners of a "false Islam"). All other Muslims, we were told, were "moderates," no matter how immoderate their beliefs. There was very little public understanding of sharia - the Islamic societal framework and legal system - and of the fact that imposing its implementation is the rationale for both jihadist terror and the non-violent agitations of Islamist groups.
What has changed over the past 13 years is not Islamism. Thanks to the good work of people like Daniel - I have tried to do my share, too - the public has begun to learn that Islamists include not only terrorists but Islamic supremacists who seek to impose and inculcate sharia standards by such other means as lawfare, legislation, the classroom, the media, popular culture, etc. There is nothing new in this variegated approach; it is the same plan for ground-up revolution that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna laid out nearly a century ago. There is, however, more popular awareness today that not every non-terrorist Muslim activist is a "moderate."
Daniel recalls his observation all those years ago that many Islamists "are peaceable in appearance, but they all must be considered potential killers." He says "these words ring archaic now," but, to me, they simply reflect the still valid insight that terrorist and non-terrorist Islamists share objectives even if their methods differ. I don't think there has been any real evolution just because we are in a time when many Islamists, as Daniel says, "find the ballot box a more effective means to power than the gun."