tagtag.com/aqsa

3 August 2007  

The Muslim Weekly  

By Ismail Patel, Chair, Friends of Al- Aqsa  

The use of the term 'Islamist' in reference to Muslims who use extreme and indiscriminate violence to further their political causes is gaining currency. This term as a substitute to what was an even more offensive expression 'Islamic terrorist' gives rise to both challenges and misunderstandings.  

The misuse of the term Islamist is also being propelled by a few self- proclaimed Muslim extremism 'experts'. Despite an episode more than a decade ago, politically a pre-historic era, does not necessarily make one an expert on extremism and its constituent elements today. It is necessary to put some perspective on such irresponsible individuals and their irrational and often unsubstantiated commentary, with a little history, some firm facts
and a global perspective.  

Firstly, the term Islamist has a strong phonetic link to Islam and therefore casually directs the reader, listener and observer to link Islam with terrorism. Secondly, most Muslims consider themselves Islamists to a greater or a lesser degree, as the term simply refers to those who implement Islam in their lives - politically or otherwise. Thus, they are all enveloped by implication.  

It is clear that the casual use of this word to refer to terrorism belies a lack of understanding about Islamic history and the emergence of violent religious radicals. This is where one needs to understand the difference between an Islamist and a Takfiri (violent religious radicalist).  

The origin of the Takfiri can be traced back to the first generation of Muslims over 14 centuries ago - who were at the time known as Khawarij. These people were central in plotting to assassinate Muslim Caliphs - leaders – including the third Caliph following the Prophet Muhammad. It was from this time that a division existed between the Islamists, and the puritanical version of Islam promoted by the Takfiri.  

This violence against what they perceive as the 'enemy within' – political Islamists - has persisted to this day. We witness it in the form of al Qaeda, who first and foremost opposed Muslims who do not adhere to their brand of Islam. Now they also attack the West who they see as imposing an un-Islamic way upon them. History bares testimony that it has always been the central body of Islam and in particular the more politicised amongst its members who checked the advance of the Takfiri.  

Mainstream Islamists as a minority community in the West have sought to redefine and evolve an identity based on the values of Islam underpinning personal conduct. Islamist movements in the Middle East have attempted to further this with economic systems and good governance. The perceived Islamist challenge to the West emanates from the West's refusal to accept an alternative view point and its monopoly over the cultural and economic implementation of values such as freedom, social justice, equality, good governance and even democracy.  

Takfiri groups such as al Qaeda are capitalising on the West's resistance in engaging with Islamists by violently disrupting the evolving global community. They are diametrically opposed to the actions of Islamist movement groups such as Hamas, Hizbullah, Muslim Brotherhood and Jamat Islamia. This was aptly highlighted when Ayman Zawahiri, the second in command of al Qaeda, condemned Hamas for participating in the January 2006 elections, "How come they did not demand an Islamic constitution for Palestine before entering any elections? Are they not an Islamic movement?"  

In refusing to differentiate between Takfiri and Islamist at home and abroad; and in denying Islamist in the Middle East the tools of democracy and self-government that the West extols, the United States and its allies through the War on Terror are actually helping to spread the Takfiri ideology of violent Jihad. The employment of the term 'Islamist' as synonymous with 'terrorist' obfuscates the reality; subjects many Muslims to suspicion and consequently seriously undermines any efforts made by Muslim communities to rise up to the challenges of the day, namely opposing terrorism.  

It is an irony that the Takfiri mirror the views of neo- cons who both believe that through force they can get the other to 'our way' of life. If the neo-cons and their henchmen drawn from the past Islamic radical groups succeed in convincing the government to react by eroding civil liberties through draconian legislations at home and assist those employing repressive military responses abroad; attacks on our soil will escalate in frequency and severity.  

If the 'war on terror' and 'war on kuffar' (non- Muslims) is not to slip into a bitter global polarisation and head towards a clash of civilisations; the civic society - Muslims and non Muslims - need to rise up and put a wedge of common sense between the extremist factions.  

Islamist groups in Britain and the West are the most proficient medium to challenge the Takfiri and bridge the alarming gap emerging between the East and West. Perhaps we need to reiterate Alan Johnston's case and recall that while Islamists in Britain were party in mobilizing against the captors, it was the Islamist Hamas group who succeeded in gaining his release. This flies in the face of uninitiated who lump Islamist with the Takfiri. Perhaps Khalid Meshal, the head of Hamas political Bureau, recent statement helps clear doubts, " Hamas will not accept nor tolerate anyone exploiting the sacred cause of the Palestinian people to commit acts of murder and carnage around the world."

Home Site Map my.TagTag

Terms of Use
TagTag.com