Semantics are important in this war of words

When Toby Young, a self-proclaimed “classic liberal”, tweeted to journalist Mehdi Hassan, “My point is that being anti-Islamist isn’t ‘Islamophobic’,” he perhaps unwittingly sparked number of questions in my mind. Two weeks later, British Prime Minister David Cameron’s 5,500-word speech in Birmingham mentioned the word “Islamist” 10 times and “extremist” 32 times. His speech was neither a landmark nor innovative in terms of policies; rather, the hour-long ramble contained a number of inconsistencies, political selectiveness and statements of unadulterated intolerance as he highlighted the role of Muslim parents in preventing radicalisation, the “enforcing of British values” and perceived lack of integration.

The most perplexing of terms used by both these men was “Islamist”, which made me wonder if either of them actually grasp the meaning of a word manufactured by men but applied to a religion created by God. The grossly inadequate definition of Islamism is an ideology which guides social and political as well as personal life; it is, apparently, a radicalised form of Islam. The words Islamist and Islamism are crude examples of terminology from the neoconservative lexicon; such far-right extremists associate them with terror and fundamentalism. I cannot fathom out how such extremely negative connotations are coupled with social, personal and political Islam.

While the world has come to recognise Islamism as something only the radical followers of Islam adopt, I reject its use in any context. Quite simply, it fails to encompass the fact that Islam itself is more than a religion; cliché though it has become, Islam is a complete way of life. A conscious effort to understand Islam would include a statement by Nobel Laureate George Bernard Shaw that “if a man like [Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him] were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring much needed peace and happiness.” The Prophet led a holistic life which encompassed all areas of governance, including political strategies and financial dealings as well as social welfare. All of these manifestations were, and still are, governed by the Qur’an and the Ahadeeth (documented teachings of the Prophet). Islam transcends the status of a mere ritualistic religion; everything in Islam has both a personal and socio-political dimension. As such, if any devout Muslim tries to follow the Islamic way of life sincerely then he or she will, by default, be deemed an “Islamist” by the neocons. Thus, by inserting the word “Islamism” into the anti-extremist narrative politicians and others are implying that the degree to which a Muslim practices Islam is indicative of their status as a potential terrorist, or an “Islamist fundamentalist” as Cameron puts it.

Delving further into the origins of the term Islamism, we find numerous articles authored by notorious Islamophobes. America’s Pamela Gellar, the self-declared “Queen of Muslim Bashing” who is proud to be “opposing Islam”, pontificates on how a “good” Muslim doesn’t incorporate any form of political, economic or social aspects of Islam into their daily life. Does this mean that Muslims who hold certain views at the core of their faith that are not palatable to secular liberalism will be flagged as intolerant fundamentalists and targeted as potential radicals and terrorists? It is increasingly evident that the architects of this arbitrary form of association are usually non-Muslims steeped in Islamophobia and racism.

Indeed, promoting the concept of Islamism has only served to breed Islamophobia globally. In the USA, reported incidents of anti-Muslim crimes shot up by 1,600 per cent in 2001 compared to the number of similar incidents in 2000. Professor Franklin Lamb utilised FBI statistics to point out that between 1980 and 2005 only six per cent of terrorist incidents in the US were committed by Muslims. Lamb elaborated further: “The picture is similar in Europe. Of a total of 1,571 terrorist attacks in the EU only 6 were committed by Islamist terrorists which translates to less than 0.4 per cent of all attacks, which means that 99.6 per cent of all attacks were committed by Non-Muslims.” Yet, whenever one hears the word “terrorist” on the news most people will now draw an indiscriminate (and unjustified) connection to the terms Islamists or Islamism, and therefore Muslims. Such is the power of words.

To conflate political Islam with this “Islamism” unfairly evokes negative images. It is perplexing that the idea of Islam being political is stigmatised, when the “only democracy in the Middle East” – Israel – is governed by politicised Judaism. Dictated by Zionism, an ideology which is a nationalist and political Jewish movement that established a Jewish homeland in Palestine, Israel’s Basic Laws instil Jewish supremacy governed solely by religion. As a Zionist state, Israel has always identified itself as the “Jewish state” for all of the world’s Jews. The so-called Law of Return gives automatic citizenship to Jews from anywhere in the world, but to nobody else. It is simply bizarre that Israel can still be legitimised as a democracy, yet those who seek to implement Islamic principles within the political realm are labelled pejoratively as “Islamists” and become synonymous with fundamentalism and terrorism. Secondary to the politics of language, we have seen how legitimate resistance against Israel’s military occupation of Palestine by the Islamic Movement has been tainted as both terrorism and Islamism, something rarely, if ever, done to people of other faiths.

“In order to arrive at a more peaceful and equitable peace in our society,” writes Nathan Lean, research director at Georgetown University’s Centre for Muslim-Christian Understanding, “we must divorce ourselves from the notion that we are authorities on the faith traditions of others and as such are entitled to prescribe how they must interpret them in order to be welcomed.” Carving up Muslims and Islam into what others think they should be is only going to generate mind-sets such as those demonstrated by Toby Young and David Cameron’s ignorance about the importance of semantics in this debate. If the latter hopes to win the hearts and minds of British Muslims, he is going about it the wrong way.

Dr Aayesha J Soni is a medical doctor, qualified from the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. She is also the Vice-Chairperson of the Media Review Network (MRN). Her passion is combating injustice globally, and her particular focus of challenging the growing trend of Islamophobia is done through her various written and oral critiques.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.