We need a new vocabulary to talk about Islam.
by Evan der Millner
Islamophobia is a useful word to describe an irrational fear of Islam, as a diseased state of mind. It is not a good word to use in the current context, a world where a caliphate has been proclaimed, and Muslims are radicalised left, right and centre. It is not a useful word to use when talking about political Islam.
Many Muslims I have spoken to - even ones I would have thought would be highly Westernised, and moderate, are sympathetic to the overall goals of the caliphate. They yearn for their former imagined glory.
A phobia is an irrational fear - and there is nothing irrational in the fear the free secular world has regarding the implementation of Islam as a political philosophy. So, what words do we use?
At present, it appears the political Islamists have the upper hand, and those voices that are opposed, are either cowed into silence, or their opinions are written off. Perhaps they are silent because they are tacit sympathisers with the grand, fantastical goal of re-establishing over-arching Islamic hegemony in the lands formerly under Arab domination? You will see Muslims protesting against Israel, protesting in support of the militant State of Gaza (itself possibly soon to fall under the sway of ISIL), but where are the demonstrations expressing outrage against the abuses carried out in the name of all Muslims, by the rising star of the Caliphate?
The question is, who will define what Islam is in this century? Those who oppose political Islam, those who think of Islam as a private and personal religious quest, or those who support it?
Either way, that still leaves us, we who wish to talk about this issue, with a problem.
How do we talk about this phenomenon, without attacking Islam itself?
Nathan Lean, in this article in the New Republic would have us abandon the phrase 'moderate Muslim'. Perhaps he is right, but for all the wrong reasons.
Some of his bad reasoning is outlined in the response to his article by Jonathan Tobin in an article in 'Commentary' magazine.
What does the term 'moderate Muslim' actually mean?
Until we can define it, we should not use it.
In this, Nathan Lean is right - in using the term, we only deceive ourselves. Is a Muslim who is scrupulous in his or her personal religious quest,a Muslim who prays five times a day, who gives charity, who is punctilious in his observance of ritual cleanliness, who studies Koran daily, but who opposes the imposition of Islam on others via the imposition of Islamic Religious Law, the Sharia, a moderate Muslim?
By our western standards of religiosity, this person is an extremist, and a fundamentalist. In terms of the political context, he or she is a moderate.
However, to label such a person as a moderate is to cast doubts on their personal religiosity. Moderate Muslims, in the way the term is being used nowadays, refers to the political dimension, not the religious one.
Faithful, non-political Muslims are not in any way 'moderate' in how they practice Islam personally - no less moderate than a Hasidic Jew.
It is clear that we need better terminology.
Does 'moderate Muslim' mean 'secular Muslim'? Does it mean a Muslim who thinks that Islam only applies in the private sphere, and is not to be used to govern any aspect of day to day life - a total separation between 'religion' and 'faith' - a sort of comfortable neo-Epicurean type of religion, such as is much of modern non-orthodox Judaism and Anglican Christianity? I do not think there are vast numbers of Muslims that would fall into this category; moderate Islam is not akin to secular Christianity or Westernised Judaism.
How many 'moderate' Muslims would come out and say openly that they oppose the implementation of Sharia? That they are in favour of the full emancipation of women, and that all religions have an equal right to flourish under the sun? That sexual and other minorities must be protected in law? That, in the end, is what it amounts to, in the way the terminology is understood by the average person in the street. This is not what 'Moderate Muslim' means, within the Islamic context.
There has been no equivalent of a Protestant Reformation in Islam. The reforms of Attaturk, the closest thing to a reformation in an Islamic state, were essentially external to Islam, not internal to it.
So, what does 'moderate Muslim' actually mean?
Until we can define the term, we simply should not use it.
It is a useless term, indeed, an injurious one, as it alienates religiously observant Muslims who are otherwise not politicised.
That brings me back to Islamophobia. A better word is needed. The objection to 'Islamophobia' is that it casts its net too widely. The objection is not to Islam per se in all its manifestations. We need words to define our visceral objection to Islamo-fascism, to the uncompromising implementation of political Islam.
We have an accepted naming system for defining political philosophies:
Communism
Libertarianism
Liberalism etc.
I propose we stop talking about Islamophobia, and start talking about Islamism and anti-Islamism.
Instead of talking about 'moderate Muslims', we start talking about anti-Islamist Muslims and Islamist Muslims.
We need a vocabulary that separates the religion from the political philosophy of Islam.
I think that for a freedom loving, secular Western humanist to be anti-Islamist, is perfectly valid - there are good reasons to fear Islamo-fascism, the uncompromising implementation of Sharia in the political realm, especially insofar as it impacts on women, and minorities - both sexual and religious.
It is this 'brand' of Islam that we refer to, when we talk about fear of Islam - what has been termed by some Islamo-fascism - those who agitate for a 'full implementation' of Islam, an uncompromising Sharia State. Those who are 'Islamophobic' for the most part have no problem with Islam as practiced in private, as a personal faith. They are frightened of Islam as a political movement.
So, in conclusion: It is time we stopped insulting pious non-political Muslims, and drop the term 'Moderate Muslim'.
We need to be clearer with our words. Islam per se is not the problem.
Political Islam, the political philosophy of Islamism, or Shariaism, is what we oppose.
We oppose it on the same grounds we would oppose the implementation of Jewish Halacha (religious Law) at a State level. We oppose it on the same grounds we would oppose the implementation of Church Law.
Islamism is a political philosophy, and our objection to it is political, not religious. When we oppose Islamism, we are not being Islamophobic.
When political cartoons are made, insulting Islamism, they are not insulting Islam itself.
These distinctions need to be made. Lines need to be drawn.
If they are not made, we will be unable to have an honest discourse about political Islam.
by Evan der Millner
Islamophobia is a useful word to describe an irrational fear of Islam, as a diseased state of mind. It is not a good word to use in the current context, a world where a caliphate has been proclaimed, and Muslims are radicalised left, right and centre. It is not a useful word to use when talking about political Islam.
Many Muslims I have spoken to - even ones I would have thought would be highly Westernised, and moderate, are sympathetic to the overall goals of the caliphate. They yearn for their former imagined glory.
A phobia is an irrational fear - and there is nothing irrational in the fear the free secular world has regarding the implementation of Islam as a political philosophy. So, what words do we use?
At present, it appears the political Islamists have the upper hand, and those voices that are opposed, are either cowed into silence, or their opinions are written off. Perhaps they are silent because they are tacit sympathisers with the grand, fantastical goal of re-establishing over-arching Islamic hegemony in the lands formerly under Arab domination? You will see Muslims protesting against Israel, protesting in support of the militant State of Gaza (itself possibly soon to fall under the sway of ISIL), but where are the demonstrations expressing outrage against the abuses carried out in the name of all Muslims, by the rising star of the Caliphate?
The question is, who will define what Islam is in this century? Those who oppose political Islam, those who think of Islam as a private and personal religious quest, or those who support it?
Either way, that still leaves us, we who wish to talk about this issue, with a problem.
How do we talk about this phenomenon, without attacking Islam itself?
Nathan Lean, in this article in the New Republic would have us abandon the phrase 'moderate Muslim'. Perhaps he is right, but for all the wrong reasons.
Some of his bad reasoning is outlined in the response to his article by Jonathan Tobin in an article in 'Commentary' magazine.
What does the term 'moderate Muslim' actually mean?
Until we can define it, we should not use it.
In this, Nathan Lean is right - in using the term, we only deceive ourselves. Is a Muslim who is scrupulous in his or her personal religious quest,a Muslim who prays five times a day, who gives charity, who is punctilious in his observance of ritual cleanliness, who studies Koran daily, but who opposes the imposition of Islam on others via the imposition of Islamic Religious Law, the Sharia, a moderate Muslim?
By our western standards of religiosity, this person is an extremist, and a fundamentalist. In terms of the political context, he or she is a moderate.
However, to label such a person as a moderate is to cast doubts on their personal religiosity. Moderate Muslims, in the way the term is being used nowadays, refers to the political dimension, not the religious one.
Faithful, non-political Muslims are not in any way 'moderate' in how they practice Islam personally - no less moderate than a Hasidic Jew.
It is clear that we need better terminology.
Does 'moderate Muslim' mean 'secular Muslim'? Does it mean a Muslim who thinks that Islam only applies in the private sphere, and is not to be used to govern any aspect of day to day life - a total separation between 'religion' and 'faith' - a sort of comfortable neo-Epicurean type of religion, such as is much of modern non-orthodox Judaism and Anglican Christianity? I do not think there are vast numbers of Muslims that would fall into this category; moderate Islam is not akin to secular Christianity or Westernised Judaism.
How many 'moderate' Muslims would come out and say openly that they oppose the implementation of Sharia? That they are in favour of the full emancipation of women, and that all religions have an equal right to flourish under the sun? That sexual and other minorities must be protected in law? That, in the end, is what it amounts to, in the way the terminology is understood by the average person in the street. This is not what 'Moderate Muslim' means, within the Islamic context.
There has been no equivalent of a Protestant Reformation in Islam. The reforms of Attaturk, the closest thing to a reformation in an Islamic state, were essentially external to Islam, not internal to it.
So, what does 'moderate Muslim' actually mean?
Until we can define the term, we simply should not use it.
It is a useless term, indeed, an injurious one, as it alienates religiously observant Muslims who are otherwise not politicised.
That brings me back to Islamophobia. A better word is needed. The objection to 'Islamophobia' is that it casts its net too widely. The objection is not to Islam per se in all its manifestations. We need words to define our visceral objection to Islamo-fascism, to the uncompromising implementation of political Islam.
We have an accepted naming system for defining political philosophies:
Communism
Libertarianism
Liberalism etc.
I propose we stop talking about Islamophobia, and start talking about Islamism and anti-Islamism.
Instead of talking about 'moderate Muslims', we start talking about anti-Islamist Muslims and Islamist Muslims.
We need a vocabulary that separates the religion from the political philosophy of Islam.
I think that for a freedom loving, secular Western humanist to be anti-Islamist, is perfectly valid - there are good reasons to fear Islamo-fascism, the uncompromising implementation of Sharia in the political realm, especially insofar as it impacts on women, and minorities - both sexual and religious.
It is this 'brand' of Islam that we refer to, when we talk about fear of Islam - what has been termed by some Islamo-fascism - those who agitate for a 'full implementation' of Islam, an uncompromising Sharia State. Those who are 'Islamophobic' for the most part have no problem with Islam as practiced in private, as a personal faith. They are frightened of Islam as a political movement.
So, in conclusion: It is time we stopped insulting pious non-political Muslims, and drop the term 'Moderate Muslim'.
We need to be clearer with our words. Islam per se is not the problem.
Political Islam, the political philosophy of Islamism, or Shariaism, is what we oppose.
We oppose it on the same grounds we would oppose the implementation of Jewish Halacha (religious Law) at a State level. We oppose it on the same grounds we would oppose the implementation of Church Law.
Islamism is a political philosophy, and our objection to it is political, not religious. When we oppose Islamism, we are not being Islamophobic.
When political cartoons are made, insulting Islamism, they are not insulting Islam itself.
These distinctions need to be made. Lines need to be drawn.
If they are not made, we will be unable to have an honest discourse about political Islam.
