How useful is the word 'Islamist'?

Both Melanie Phillips and Stephen Pollard are incensed at David Cameron's suggestion that the word "Islamist" should not be used to describe Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. Their argument is that Cameron is denying the ideological basis of the terrorist activity - something that is very dangerous.

Or at least it would be, if that is what Cameron was doing.

Considering that about two and a half people in the country agree with Stephen, Melanie and me about the War on Terror, I prefer to build alliances rather than trying to identify traitors.

This is what Cameron actually said:

We do need greater understanding of the true nature of the terrorist threat. There's too much complacency about it among non-Muslims, and too much denial of it in the Muslim community. But our efforts are not helped by lazy use of language. Indeed, by using the word 'Islamist' to describe the threat, we actually help do the terrorist ideologues' work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a 'good Muslim', you have to support their evil campaign.

I have used the term Islamist until now, but is worth at least debating whether using the term is a good idea.

In a fascinating post, Melanie writes about Ed Husain's new book The Islamist. This book shows how his dangerous radicalism grew from small increments in his fundamentalism. At the earliest possible stage - the handing out of a book by a teacher - no distinction was made between dangerous literature and mainstream Muslim thinking.

Perhaps using an alternative phrase to Islamism would help distinguish between the radicals and the rest of Islam. I certainly think this is worth discussing temperately, rather than lambasting anyone for making the suggestion.

But me? I'll go on using Islamism until I can find a better term. It is vital to understand the ideological basis of the terrorist action and telling that Mr Cameron, by his own admission, hasn't got an alternative suggestion.

Comments

[Gabriel]

"But our efforts are not helped by lazy use of language. Indeed, by using the word 'Islamist' to describe the threat, we actually help do the terrorist ideologues' work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a 'good Muslim', you have to support their evil campaign."

Cameron is nothing more than a grotesque personification of the arrogance of Britain's metropolitan elite. Does he actually think that the terminlogy used by politicians to describe those who believe in political Islam has any effect whatsoever in what Muslims believe or do?
Islamists are wrong; their programme (whether they believe in implementing it by bombs or by the ballot box) is objectively evil, but they are sentient, rational human beings who are perfectly capable of making their own choices. Strange as it may seem, it is the content of the Koran not Cameron's verbal diarrhoeah that underlies their reasoning.

[Roundhead]

hello -

It is well that `moderate' Muslims be offended by Islamism, which is to say, by the Islamists themselves, not those who accurately describe it through the use of such terms - Islamic fascism is also quite accurate.

If, as so-called moderate Muslim organizations repeatedly state, Osama and the rest of the Islamic fascists are not `real Muslims', why should they be offended either by the war against them, or their description as fascists?

If Lady Thatcher were dead, she'd be rolling in her grave.

thanks

[Dr. Denis MacEoin]

When they write in Arabic, Persian, Urdu and other Islamic languages, the very committed Muslims whom we term 'Islamists' in English use a variety of terms for themselves, of which 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' are the chief ones. There is no easy way to make a distinction in Arabic, say, or Persian, between a Muslim and an Islamist, without introducing pejorative forms like 'pseudo-Muslim'. 'Islamist' (not to be confused with Islamist) and 'Islamism' are extremely useful, given that usages like 'Salafi' or 'Wasati' aren't at all familiar to most English-speaking people. I like Islamism because it communicates the sense that radicals have made the Islamic religion into a particular ideology. Islamist works well alongside radical oir fundamentalist. This last term has been derided, but it's actually spot on, since it describes a particularly literal way of reading the Qur'an and Hadith. Inerrantist and literalist would work well. There is no easy translation for the most accurate term, Salafi, which derives from the 'Salaf' or first three generations of Islam: fundamentalists claim to observe the faith exactly according to the pattern of those first generations. This is what gives their approach its rigidity. The biggest problem lies in distinguishing between radicals and moderates, something I generally avoid doing. There is no black and white division between them. Many Muslims who would never contemplate terrorism or demand a Caliphate or shari'a law would nevertheless agree to a literal interpretation of texts, and from this literal interpretation may arise more radical thinking. Radicals can sway young minds precisely because they do know what's in the Qur'an and Hadith, can quote verses calling for holy war, and can make this seem attractive. Most moderates lack the training in modernist interpretation that might help youngsters refute Islamist claims. It's a spectrum, and that makes choosing one term or another very hard.

[Irfan Yusuf (Sydney, Australia)]

The terms Islamist and Islamism are academic terms used to describe a modern 20th century ideology from the 14-century old Islamic faith and theology.

Allegedly liberal politicians and allegedly sane columnists can, if they wish, use the term to link Islamist violence and ideology to Muslim theology. Melanie Phillips tries to do so.

But then, Melanie Phillips also accuses British judges of undermining the common law by using their position as judges to make law.

I'm not sure what Ms Phillips' expertise is, but it certainly isn't Islamism or the common law. I do, however, believe that terms such as "Islamist" are useful in distinguishing this ideological phenomenon from the ancient values of an Abrahamic faith.

[Tom Beck]

The terrorists claim their deeds are carried out in the name of Islam, so why should we not use the term ‘Islamic, when discussing them? After all, in the first instance it’s THEIR usage, not ours, so why the doubts?

[cmaje]

I find the term "Islamist" useful but am puzzled by Irfan Yusuf's juxtoposition of "Islamist" against "an ancient Abrahamic faith". It seems to me that the more that Muslims study their faith, and the truer they are to its "Abrahamic" roots, the more likely they are to become Islamists, prone to give repressively totalitarian answers to questions such as whether a Muslim should be free to renounce his faith, whether a female witness should have the same status as a male, whether non-Muslims should have the same rights as Muslims in Muslim states, whether other faiths should be free to preselytise to Muslims in Muslim states, etc. With the rare execption of "modern" Muslims who interpret the Koran in a historial context (arguing that the Koran's literal text was meant for different times and contexts), I find that in general, the more decent a Muslim, the less he knows about the texts of his religion.