Islamism Is Not Islam.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Islamism Is Not Islam

The furor over the inaccurately dubbed 'Ground Zero Mosque' has done nothing but reinforce al Qaeda propaganda.

By MAAJID NAWAZ

If Islamism came to conquer New York and built an emperor's palace at Ground Zero, I would be worried. But Islamism is not Islam.

Islam is a faith. Like all other faiths it has a vibrant array of progressives, conservatives and everything in between fighting over which interpretation suits current times. In this regard, Islam is nothing exceptional.

Islamism, on the other hand, is the desire to impose any one of these interpretations over everyone else through state law.

Many commentators confuse traditionalist Muslims with Islamists. Like the Amish, Muslim traditionalists usually have few political ambitions. Their real cause is debating theology with their adversary, the Muslim modernist. Islamists, however, are not interested in the raging feud between traditionalists and modernists.

Hence, Islam is the religion and Islamism the ideological project using this religion to justify total state power. It was only after losing the fight for total state power against democracies and dictatorships alike in the Middle East that Islamists launched their war against the West. And it is Islamism, not the pluralistic faith of Islam, that struck at the twin towers.

The distinction between Islam and Islamism is not just theological. If it were, one could forgive anti-Islam pundits for confusing the two when blaming Islam itself for the woes that extremists have sought to reap upon America and the world. But this distinction can be discovered regardless of theology, through the social sciences.

For instance, Muslims throughout history rarely codified any version of the Islamic religious code, or Shariah, as state law. The result was a Muslim history full of religious societies with very temporal and often debauched ruling dynasties. Indeed, these dynasties launched religiously justified wars, against themselves and others. But was that not the practice of all medieval kings seeking material glory while promising spiritual salvation to their men? The simple fact is that, as with all medieval states, religion was but a political convenience.

Breaking with this tradition, Islamism emerged as an entirely modern social-engineering project, designed initially to resist colonialism. Islamists' focus on controlling the "state," adopting an "Islamic constitution," and codifying and implementing "Islamic law" were all borne of ideas that grew out of the European nation-state. The terms state, constitution and law are not referred to at all in the Quran. It mattered little to Islamists, bent on rejecting all that was Western, that their entire debate took place within an exclusively European political paradigm.

In Muslim-majority societies that hold elections today, parties wanting to "rule in God's name" have been roundly defeated time and again by their fellow Muslims. Take two of the world's most populous Muslim-majority countries, Indonesia and Bangladesh. In recent years, the electorates of both these countries have decisively rejected Islamism in favor of secular, democratic values. In the Arab-speaking world, the situation is similar. For the last 20 years, whether seeking power through the gun or the ballot-box, Islamists have failed. Fortunately, Islamists do not speak on behalf of Islam.

Unfortunately, this message has not been heard enough in the West, leading many Americans to believe that all Muslims are closet Islamists, hell-bent on global domination. For this reason, the Islamic center in New York has been transformed in the minds of many into a symbol of Islam's conquest of America. So far the furor over the inaccurately dubbed "Ground Zero Mosque" has achieved nothing but reinforce al Qaeda propaganda that the West is at war with Islam.

This controversy also shows the limitations of Samuel Huntington's theory of the "Clash of Civilizations." Huntington's claim that Muslims form a distinct anti-secular civilization that is on a collision path with the West is insulting, and must be music to the ears of Osama bin Laden. It is also inaccurate. Without the legacy of medieval Muslim Spain, the political foundations of modern Europe would look very different today.

It is time to revise this aging and divisive theory that pits Muslims against non-Muslims. If there is a clash of civilizations it is, as election results show, between democratic and pluralistic peoples the world over and those who wish to forcibly impose their ideas on others in the quest to construct an artificial model of social perfection that only exists in their minds. This clash is not religion-based, but ideological.

Throughout history—and indeed today—Muslims have repeatedly rejected the al Qaeda message of enforcing one view of Islam over all society. Islam is no more resistant to peace than any other religion is. All religious faiths have a propensity for good. They should be defined by the way in which the vast majority of their followers profess them.

Mr. Nawaz is co-founder of the counterextremism think tank Quilliam and founder of the Khudi movement, which works to promote a democratic culture in Pakistan.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Good read, not sure I entirely agree, but will be honest enough to admit I don't possess a lot of personal knowledge with regards to where I have questions.

Have to think about this one, but I don't think Islamists win if the Cultural Center is built where planned or that they win if there is any debate over it.

[mawilson 2,133]

So now Islam = Good Islam, Islamism = Bad Islam?