This article was written jointly
with Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University
The term “Islamism” which we hear
much of nowadays, is not new. Dr. Kedar and I will spare the readers the
history of the term except to mention that it first appeared in English as in
1712 and originally denoted the
religion of Islam (Oxford
English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 27
December 2012). After virtually disappearing from the English
language, it regained prevalence in the 1970’s. Nowadays the term is widely used.
Its contemporary connotations infer “Radical” or “Fundamental” Islam.
As Dr. Kedar rightfully argues, the
above distinction is wrong. “There
are not two Islams,” he claims, “no moderate one and no radical one, there is
just one Qu'ran that includes everything: verses on Jihad and all-out war
against unbelievers along with verses that speak of recognizing the
"other" and living beside him.” In other words, everything can be found in the
Qu’ran, the good and the bad. Those that choose the tolerant, the benevolent aspects
of Islam claim that theirs is the right kind of Islam yet those who adhere to
the more violent preaching of Qu’ran assert that theirs is the true Islam.
The claim
by many moderate Muslim that their Islam has been hijacked by the “fundamentalists”
or “Islamists,” amounts to no more than a struggle born of their wish to enter
the mainstream of western societies. This claim, however, moves on a two way
street. “Radical” Muslims will, likewise, maintain that the “moderate” ones
have hijacked theirs version, interpretation and practice of Islam.
Herein
lies the dilemma that many, mostly in the Western world, face. It is a well-known
fact that some of Islam’s teachings and practices are not compatible with
Western Civilization. With followers numbering more than a billion people, the
world needs to reckon with this demographic issue in a manner that will ensure
its survival. It knows that most followers of Islam (“radicals” and “moderates”
alike) are loyal to their faith. Very few leave Islam to become members of another
faith. The Western world is also aware that their numbers are not only growing
but that they are also moving in their direction, into their societies, into
their universe and their, thus far, protected environment.
This is where language as a tool, a means to achieve the goal of facilitating the compatibility between Islam and the West has become dexterous. Why not just resort to the easy simple solution, add “ism” to Islam in order to distinguish, to separate between “radical “ Muslims and “moderate” ones? The “ism,” many believe, is the panacea that will make Islam “kosher” and harmonious with the West and consequently ready to join its families.
The suffix “Ism,” according to the Cambridge Dictionaries Online, “is a set of beliefs, especially ones that you disapprove of.” The key word here is “disapprove.” Of course we disapprove of the manner in which “radical” Muslims act. Who, in Western Civilization, would not? Disapproval, however, can be demonstrated in more than one way. It could be passive, it could be voiced more vigorously and when taken to the extreme it can become violent.
This is where language as a tool, a means to achieve the goal of facilitating the compatibility between Islam and the West has become dexterous. Why not just resort to the easy simple solution, add “ism” to Islam in order to distinguish, to separate between “radical “ Muslims and “moderate” ones? The “ism,” many believe, is the panacea that will make Islam “kosher” and harmonious with the West and consequently ready to join its families.
The suffix “Ism,” according to the Cambridge Dictionaries Online, “is a set of beliefs, especially ones that you disapprove of.” The key word here is “disapprove.” Of course we disapprove of the manner in which “radical” Muslims act. Who, in Western Civilization, would not? Disapproval, however, can be demonstrated in more than one way. It could be passive, it could be voiced more vigorously and when taken to the extreme it can become violent.
The
latter is what the West and most Muslims in the West wish to avoid and rightfully
so. It is probably what those whom we label as “Islamists” would wish to draw
us into. That, of course, leaves us with the former two. Passive resistance
through the use of Love as a weapon to overthrow the “ism” in Islam is of
course a noble concept. It does not, however, always work.
“Moderate”
Muslims need to take a more active role to defend the reputation of the Islam
that they choose to practice. They need to publicly speak out, demonstrate, and
express outrage and disagreement with the evil among them. Though initially the
addition of “ism” to Islam may have somewhat been useful in defending “moderate”
Muslims, ultimately it will prove to be falsely reassuring if it fails to push them
to act against their “radical” brethren. Hiding behind suffixes, expecting them
to save the good name and the positive image of one’s set of beliefs merely boil
down to a futile effort initiated and promoted by a world obsessed with PC.
Not until Islam gives rise to its own Martin Luther, its own reformist, will there be redemption for its reputation. Only Muslims can save the reputation of Islam.
Not until Islam gives rise to its own Martin Luther, its own reformist, will there be redemption for its reputation. Only Muslims can save the reputation of Islam.