On October 11, the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) posted an article where its Executive Director, Dawud Walid, says that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is engaging in “politics of fear” by talking about the “so-called Islamists.” This statement isn’t just meant to undermine a political campaign. It’s about dismissing the notion that Islamists even exist at all.
The term Islamist (or Islamism) refers to an adherence to “political Islam,” an ideology that deems Islam not only a religion, but the view that Sharia law should be implemented in all spheres of life including government, social, judicial, economic, military and cultural. Adherents envision world domination by the Muslim ummah (the worldwide community of Muslims).
Walid wrote, “And he [Romney] made a statement that so-called Islamists want to wage perpetual war with the West. So it appears that Mr. Romney is engaged in the politics of fear,” Walid said. He stated that Romney “sounds a little hostile” to Muslims.
Walid’s statement conveys two messages: Islamists don’t exist and Muslims should feel threatened by those who say they do.
The word “Islamist” is problematic for Walid and CAIR because if you accept the term, then you accept that Muslims are not a monolith in terms of ideology. This undermines the efforts of CAIR and its Islamist allies to mobilize the ummah, as if it were one political party or nation-state. Suddenly, Muslim-Americans are forced to identify themselves as Islamists or non-Islamists, giving an opening for alternative leadership to arise that can compete with the Brotherhood network.
The denial that Islamists exist is actually an indication that one is an Islamist. This sounds like a self-contradiction, but Islamists view themselves as the only authentic practitioners of Islam. There is only one Islam and it is theirs. To them, “Islamism” is therefore an artificial and meaningless construct.
The Brotherhood affiliates differ in their approaches to the term. Some will use the term “Islamists” but characterize them as non-threatening and “moderate” by comparing them to Al-Qaeda. Others, like Walid, question they even exist in the first place. The objective of either approach is to stop the U.S. from viewing the Islamist ideology as the problem, as opposed to just Al-Qaeda-type jihadists. Once Islamism becomes the problem, then CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates are seen as part of the problem. Right now, they are seen as part of the solution, the bridge-builders that the U.S. government must court.
The double-standard of Walid’s attack on Romney is breathtaking. America is one of the only countries (perhaps the only) where using the term “Islamists” is highly controversial and seen as an attack on all of Islam and its adherents. In the Middle East, the least tolerant region on earth, “Islamist” regularly appears in the press and Islamists often identify themselves that way. Almost everyone accepts that criticism of Islamists is not a criticism of all Muslims, especially because it is often Muslims who are making the criticisms.
Furthermore, Walid isn’t exactly someone who is in a credible position to warn about the “politics of fear.” CAIR and its allies constantly tell Muslims that they are targeted by powerful “Islamophobes” inside and outside the government. Counter-terrorism prosecutions are reflexively depicted as anti-Muslim persecutions. Walid himself makes it sound like the FBI has so many evil people in it that the agency would spend its resources and times ruining the lives of innocent Muslims.
The Investigative Project on Terrorism dossier of Walid documents the messages he sends to the Muslim-American community. For example, take his reaction to the death of Luqman Abdullah, an extremist leader that was killed after he resisted arrest and opened fire on FBI agents in 2009. His immediate reaction was to defend the integrity of Abdullah and suggest that the FBI instructed its dogs to attack him, resulting in him firing the first shot out of self-defense. He said, “Is this the kind of excessive force that we black Americans are all too familiar with?”
After four terrorism suspects were arrested in New York, Walid didn’t take a wait-and-see approach, assuming that the FBI isn’t out to get Muslims. He engaged in the “politics of fear” he complains about. He said the FBI is “manufacturing their own terrorism suspects to give the appearance that they’re actually doing something tangible in the so-called ‘War on Terrorism.’”
He acted the same way in September 2010 after the FBI raided homes as part of a terrorism investigation in Illinois and Minnesota. He said, “I’m here to defend the 1st Amendment and for the freedom of speech and of association. The recent raids that took place on peace activists are basically amounting to a witch hunt to chill the 1st Amendment rights of Americans.”
There is nothing inflammatory or bigoted about the term “Islamist.” The U.S. shouldn’t be afraid to say it and explain what it means. Until we do, we’ll be in an endless chase after the vague “terrorists” and “extremists” who we are too afraid to define.
