My latest in PJ Media:
Maajid Nawaz has done the world a great service: he has exposed the Southern Poverty Law Center. Unfortunately, nobody’s perfect. “Maajid Nawaz expertly debunks theory that Islam is ‘inherently fundamentalist,’“ wrote the sycophant Seán Hickey in the UK’s LBC on Saturday, and I say it’s high time. So many Muslims around the world have been acting as if the Qur’an’s numerous exhortations to violence against unbelievers were marching orders for today, but now they will no doubt listen to the counsel of the wise Nawaz, lay down their machetes, and live at peace with the infidels. Won’t they?
Hickey continues: “After dismantling a caller’s argument on extremism in Afghanistan, Maajid Nawaz explains how some people’s views on Islam are flawed. The enlightening moment came after Maajid Nawaz had a run-in with a regular caller who claimed that the idea that the West has destabilised Afghanistan is a ‘false narrative’. The caller then proceeded to argue that the religion of Islam is a violent faith at its core.”
Horror of horrors! But fortunately for us, the luckless caller had the temerity to say such a thing to one of the world’s most renowned moderate Muslims, so that we could all be the beneficiaries of the “enlightening moment” that ensued. The enlightened Nawaz intoned: “This idea that Islam as a religion stands alone as being naturally fundamentalist and violent is dodgy.”
Recommended: $3M Settlement: SPLC Apologizes for Branding Muslim Reformer an ‘Anti-Muslim Extremist’
Oh, it’s a “dodgy” idea! In that case, we must all stop thinking it! Nawaz elaborated by asserting that this claim “somehow doesn’t stand up – this idea that Islam is naturally an aggressive fundamentalist religion, actually no it’s not.” Why not? Because “if you look into the history of the rise of Islamism, as I’ve attempted to explain, primarily it came due to war and in fact it was used by us to stop the Soviet Union.”
That’s right: Nawaz actually claimed that violent Islam is a product of 1970s geopolitics. He maintained that “militant Islamism” was “used to fight at the time what the Americans called ‘godless communism.’”
After peddling this nonsense, Nawaz had the chutzpah to claim superior knowledge: “You’ve got to know a little bit about the socioeconomic and political factors that gave rise to modern day Islamic fundamentalism to understand that there was nothing inherent about it.”
There is more. Read the rest here.
gravenimage says
Islamic Reformer Claims ‘Islamism’ Arose Only with Afghan War, Dodges Question About Quran’s Violent Passages
……………………..
I’ve heard this claptrap from Maajid Nawaz before. Does he think that no one listening to him can think back further than fifty years? Does he think that no one knows anything about history–including the 1400 year history of Islamic violence? Some “reformer”…
Wellington says
It is claptrap, gravenimage, but evil so very often relies upon the ignorance of others to succeed and with this younger generation who know so little history, and who have been taught to despise America, Britain and the West in general, more than one kind of iniquity has the advantage right now, with Islam and Leftism coming foremost to mind here.
gravenimage says
Grimly true.
Walter Sieruk says
It appears to a need to reiterate ,one again, that there is no actual ,real , genuine , word as “Islamism.”
For once that current Muslim President of Turkey came right out and spoke the truth then is said “Islam is Islam.”
Therefore, there is no “Islamism’ or for that matter there isn’t any “radical Islam ” or “extremist Islam.” It’s Just Islam.
Getting back to the subject of that false word “Islamism” that bogus word way just made up after September 11, 2001 so that non-violent Muslims wouldn’t become offended.
Let’s get real.
gravenimage says
Yes–it is another weasel word.
mortimer says
Islamism is a very useful term in political science for describing POLITICAL Islam.
Father Henri Boulad SJ (a Syrian-born expert on political Islam) explains what it means.
– “Islamism is not a caricature nor a counterfeit nor a heresy nor a fringe or atypical phenomenon versus classical, orthodox, Sunnite Islam.
To the contrary, I think Islamism is naked Islam, Islam without a mask and without paint, Islam perfectly consistent and true to itself, an Islam that has the courage and lucidity to go all the way to its ultimate conclusions and final implications.
Islamism is Islam in all its logic and in all its rigour. Islamism is present in Islam as the chick is present in the egg, as the fruit is present in the flower and as the tree is present in the seed.
But what is Islamism?
Islamism is political Islam, the bearer of a project for a model society and whose aim is to establish a theocratic state based on Sharia, the only legitimate law—since it is divine—since it was revealed and enshrined in the Koran and Sunna—it’s a law that applies to everything.
Here is an all-inclusive and all-encompassing project, one that is total, totalizing and totalitarian.” – Henri Boulad SJ
BOULAD DEMOLISHES THE WHITEWASHING of people like ‘Magic’ Nawaz.
mortimer says
There are many definitions of ‘Islamism’ (the ideology of Islamizing society). Here is what MELANIE PHILLIPS has said:
“Liberalism v Islamism
Presentation at Neo conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 11 May 2007
“First of all, let me define my terms and say what I mean by Islamism and liberalism. Islamism is the politicised version of Islam which mandates jihad or holy war against the infidel and conquest of the non-Islamic world for Islam. I’m well aware of the argument that there’s no difference between Islamism and Islam: that’s a theological argument for others to have.
By liberalism I mean the commitment to a free society, founded above all on the separation of secular government from religious worship — from which follow the concepts of equal respect for all people, freedom of conscience, tolerance and the rule of law.
These two concepts, Islamism and liberalism, are currently engaged in a fight to the death. My argument is that liberalism is in danger of losing this fight because it has so badly undermined itself and departed from its own core concepts that it is now paralysed by moral and intellectual muddle.
Liberalism is the creed of modernity. The driving force behind the Islamic jihad is the fight against liberalism and modernity. All the iconic conflicts — Iraq, Israel, Kashmir, Chechnya, Sudan —are secondary to the fundamental aim of the jihad to prevent liberalism and modernity from destroying Islam.
The founding ideologue of modern Islamism, Syed Qutb, made clear in his writings that at the core of the Salafi interpretation of Islam was opposition to the separation of religion and temporal power that resulted in liberalism and democracy. His governing impulse was the fear that the instinct for liberty was so powerful it would spread to and infiltrate the Muslim mind unless it was checked by the most repressive possible form of Islam.”
Terry Gain says
Political Islam is Islam.
There is no difference between Islamism and Islam except that the Islamists are more honest about their beliefs and how to impose them on everyone else. They are opposed to fundamental freedoms and rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, gender equality, and equality of citizenship.
Wellington says
Agreed, Terry. Many Muslims are either ignorant of some of their religion or, if not ignorant, still don’t want to enforce all the heinous Islamic dictates (e.g., death for apostasy), but this does not negate the contention by you and by others like myself that the difference between Islam and Islamism is a phantom distinction; it’s no distinction at all.
Again I would state that what an ideology says is paramount and not the fact that many adherents of a particular ideology either don’t fully implement its directives or wrongly implement its directives. I believe not understanding this is the source for the bogus distinction between Islam and Islamism, i.e., “Islam” is Mo’s creed not fully implemented and “Islamism” is Mo’s creed fully implemented. But Mo’s creed is Mo’s creed and implementation of only part of it does not, should not, lead to the conclusion that there is a good Islam called “Islam” and a bad Islam called “Islamism.” Fallacious thinking is on display whenever this occurs.
gravenimage says
True, Terry.
mortimer says
Is it really so ‘DODGY’ to say that Islam’s scriptures are MORE VIOLENT and MORE WARLIKE than the scriptures of other religions? No … it is not ‘dodgy’ at all, but a well-researched fact.
Danish researcher Tina Magaard, Ph.D. concluded that Islam is the most warlike religion. After three years analyzing the original texts of ten different religions, Tina Magaard concluded that the Islamic texts stand out by encouraging terror and fighting “to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions. The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.”
mortimer says
“The radical Islamism that has been loosed in Syria and Iraq (ISIS) is not a deviation or a perversion of an alleged true Islam, whose orientation is purely spiritual and religious. In fact, it is the most traditional form of Islam.” – Fr. Henri Boulad SJ.
“L’islamisme radical qui se déchaîne en Syrie et en Irak (ISIS) n’est pas une déviation ou une perversion du véritable islam, dont l’orientation serait uniquement spirituelle et religieuse, c’est de fait l’islam le plus traditionnel”, lâche le Père Henri Boulad.
Francis says
The Maajid Nawaz & Zeba Khan vs Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Douglas Murray debate on this subject on Youtube sponsored by the Rozenkranz Foundation ( an org. much to be commended) is fascinating. I won’t give the game away about who ‘won.’ But the thing is that it’s an anomaly, it stands out for its virtual uniqueness when the subject should be entirely normal.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Francis. You can find the video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUGmv5TGaTc&ab_channel=CaNANDian
libertyORdeath says
This is another example of the degradation of the Western educational system. We learn about slavery, imperialism, segregation and the like (despite what the “critical race theorists” claim).
We learn about the horrors of Nazism and fascism, yet we are learning less and less about the terror of communism every year. This is why students in the West are becoming more and more accepting of Marxism, socialism and communism, even going so far as to praise the ideology outright (see the numerous examples of teachers claiming that Cuba has a great health care and/or educational system)
It is the same with Islamism, in fact, it’s even worse. We rarely learn anything about the Islamic conquests, the Arab slave trade, or the jihad against Israel in primary or high school. If we expect the next generation to understand the threat that communism and Islamism pose to the world, and the West in particular, then we must inform them on the subjects.
Seems pretty simple to me. Unfortunately today, the left and the rest of the people too scared to stand up to them try to hide history. On top of that, they have scared people into thinking that it is not ok to criticize anybody who doesn’t look like you. If we don’t put a stop to that, nothing else really matters.
Don Ameche says
What about the 1400 year history of violence ?
Walter Sieruk says
The above sentence used under this picture use the pseudo word “Islamism.”
The word “Islamism” is a fake word that used that was made up after September 11, 2001 in order offend or upset non-violent Muslims. The real, actual, word is just “Islam.” Likewise, the word “Islamist” is also a bogus word that was made up after 9/11 in order not to offend or upset peaceful Muslims. To keep with reality, terms should better be used as “Islamic terrorist” or “Muslim terrorist” . Let’s call people and thing as the really are.
Likewise ,the terms “Radical Muslim” and “Islamic extremist” is actually a misuse of terms. “Moderate Muslim” are actually Western term and not that well known in the Islamic Middle East. This is because what In the Islamic mindset in the Muslim Middle East as well as in Indonesia and other Muslim controlled countries what the non-Muslims of the Western nations view as “radical and “extremist” the Muslims of those places in the world see as “Normal” and even Devout and committed to the Cause of Islam.”
Furthermore, those “Moderate Muslims” are those of the Islamic worldview and non-devout and non –committed Muslims. The violent jihadists even see them as “hypocrites.”
Therefore, this explains the jihadist chant of those jihad-minded Muslims in different Islamic terror organizations. When they chant out loud “Death to infidels and hypocrites.” Meaning Death to people who and not Muslims and people who are non- jihadist Muslims.