ISLAM VERSUS ISLAMISM: SHREWD STRATEGY OR DELUSION?

DANIEL PIPES DEFENDS THE STRATEGY OF TREATING ISLAMISM AS DISTINCT FROM ISLAM:

What motives lay behind last month's Boston Marathon bombing and the would-be attack on a Via Rail Canada train?

Leftists and establishmentarians variously offer imprecise and tired replies — such as "violent extremism" or anger at Western imperialism — unworthy of serious discussion. 

Conservatives, in contrast, engage in a lively and serious debate among themselves: some say Islam the religion provides motive; others say it's a modern extremist variant of the religion, known as radical Islam or Islamism.

As a participant in the latter debate, here's my argument for focusing on Islamism.

Those arguing for Islam itself as the problem (such as Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) point to the consistency from Muhammad's life and the contents of the Koran and Hadith to current Muslim practice. Agreeing with Geert Wilders' film "Fitna," they point to striking continuities between Koranic verses and jihad actions. They quote Islamic scriptures to establish the centrality of Muslim supremacism, jihad and misogyny, concluding that a moderate form of Islam is impossible. They point to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's deriding the very idea of a moderate Islam. Their killer question is "Was Muhammad a Muslim or an Islamist?" They contend that we who blame Islamism do so out of political correctness or cowardliness.

To which, we reply: Yes, certain continuities do exist, and Islamists definitely follow the Koran and Hadith literally. 

Moderate Muslims exist, but lack Islamists' near-hegemonic power. 

Mr. Erdogan's denial of moderate Islam points to a curious overlap between Islamism and the anti-Islam viewpoint. 

Muhammad was a plain Muslim, not an Islamist, for the latter concept dates back only to the 1920s. 

And no, we are not cowardly but offer our true analysis.

And that analysis goes like this:

Islam is the 14-century-old faith of a billion-plus believers that includes everyone from quietist Sufis to violent jihadis. Muslims achieved remarkable military, economic and cultural success between roughly 600 and 1200 A.D. Being a Muslim then meant belonging to a winning team, a fact that broadly inspired Muslims to associate their faith with mundane success. Those memories of medieval glory remain not just alive, but central to believers' confidence in Islam and in themselves as Muslims.

Major dissonance began around 1800, when Muslims unexpectedly lost wars, markets and cultural leadership to Western Europeans. It continues today, as Muslims bunch toward the bottom of nearly every index of achievement. This shift has caused massive confusion and anger. What went wrong? Why did God seemingly abandon His faithful? The unbearable divergence between premodern accomplishment and modern failure brought about trauma.

Muslims have responded to this crisis in three main ways. Secularists want Muslims to ditch the Shariah (Islamic law) and emulate the West. Apologists also emulate the West, but pretend that in doing so they are following the Shariah. Islamists reject the West in favor of a retrograde and full application of the Shariah.

Islamists loathe the West because of its vast influence over Muslims and its being tantamount to Christendom, the historic archenemy. Islamism inspires a drive to reject, defeat and subjugate Western civilization. Despite this urge, Islamists absorb Western influences, including the concept of ideology. Indeed, Islamism represents the transformation of Islamic faith into a political ideology. Islamism accurately indicates an Islamic-flavored version of radical utopianism, an -ism like other -isms, comparable to fascism and communism. Aping those two movements, for example, Islamism relies heavily on conspiracy theories to interpret the world, on the state to advance its ambitions, and on brutal means to attain its goals.

Supported by 10 percent to 15 percent of Muslims, Islamism draws on devoted and skilled cadres who have an impact far beyond their limited numbers. It poses a threat to civilized life in Iran and Egypt, and not just on the streets of Boston, but also in Western schools, parliaments and courtrooms.

Our killer question is "How do you propose to defeat Islamism?" Those who make all Islam their enemy not only succumb to a simplistic and essentialist illusion, but lack any mechanism to defeat it. We who focus on Islamism see World War II and the Cold War as models for subduing the third totalitarianism. We understand that radical Islam is the problem and that moderate Islam is the solution. 

We work with anti-Islamist Muslims to vanquish a common scourge. 

We will triumph over this new variant of barbarism so that a modern form of Islam can emerge.

IMO:

THE DEARTH OF ANTI-ISLAMIST MUSLIMS MAKES THIS STRATEGY MOOT.

A MODERN FORM OF ISLAM IS NO MORE LIKELY TO EMERGE NOW THAN DID A MODERATE FORM OF COMMUNISM EMERGE SUCCESSFULLY IN 1988 IN THE USSR.

THERE IS VERY LITTLE LIKELIHOOD THAT A SUFI-LIKE OR FIGURATIVE APPROACH TO THE KORAN AND HADITH AND SURA WILL EVER OCCUR.

AS LONG AS SAUDI'S FUND ISLAMIST MOSQUES AND MADRASSAS AND AS LONG AS PARTIES LIKE THE AKP AND HAMAS AND HIZBALLAH AND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD (AND ALL THE OTHERS) ARE TOLERATED IN THE WEST - AND WITHIN THE ISLAMIC WORLD - ISLAM WON'T CHANGE.

THE LONGER WE CALL ISLAM AN ROP, THE LONGER THE WAR GOES ON.

THE LONGER THIS WAR GOES ON THE GREATER THE LIKELIHOOD THEY WILL GET NUKES AND USE THEM AND - FAIAP - DEFEAT US.

SO, THE IDEA WE CAN ALLY OURSELVES TO PHANTOM ANTI-ISLAMIST MUSLIMS IS A DANGEROUS DELUSION.

YES: THERE ARE A FEW, BUT TO FEW TO MENTION.

TOO FEW TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

AND IRAN WILL HAVE NUKES SOON - UNLESS WE ACT.

AND THEN, THEY'LL HAVE THE UPPER HAND - AS THEY WILL GLADLY USE THEM FIRST.

AND OUR ADVANCED CIVILIZATION MIGHT NOT SURVIVE WHAT FOLLOWS NEXT ANY BETTER THEN THEY WILL.