The whole issue of whether there is a difference between Islam and Islamism; between a "religion" and a theo-political ideology; between "moderate" and"extremist"; between "reformer" and "fundamentalist"; and so on, all these are subject of intense debate, not least within the non-Muslim community.
This article by Andrew McCarthy is a very good summary of one point of view: that there is indeed a difference between Islam and Islamism.
I agree with his "opponent" on this issue, Robert Spencer, who says there is no meaningful difference. BUT, I think it's important, tactically, to act as if there IS a difference: for otherwise, the enemy, the threat we face, is simply too big. We can't take on the whole of Islam and all Muslims. But we can take on Islamism and extremist Muslims, with the help of Muslims, as well.
Update: Raymond Ibrahim expatiates on this issue as well:
What are the differences between the traditional Muslim and the so-called "Islamist"? As words dealing with Islam continue to morph and multiply, it is important to differentiate, for there are real, if subtle, differences.
...
one must first understand "Islamism"—a hybrid abomination of sorts, whereby the better principles of Western civilization are absorbed and rearticulated within a distinctly Muslim paradigm. For instance, the Western stress on human freedom, human dignity, and universal justice, is, for Islamists, transformed into a stress on Muslim freedom,Muslim dignity, and Muslim justice—all, naturally, at the sake of the infidel.
...
Lest it appear that Islamists are more "humane" than traditionalists, it should be kept in mind that the other—the non-Muslim—is viewed by both groups as the infidel enemy. In fact, whatever subtle differences may exist, the similarities between the Islamist and Muslim are many. Thus, while the traditional Sheikh and the Islamist argued over Mubarak's fate, there was never disagreement over two points—enmity for Israel and Jews, and the permissibility of using deceit to undermine them.
This article by Andrew McCarthy is a very good summary of one point of view: that there is indeed a difference between Islam and Islamism.
I agree with his "opponent" on this issue, Robert Spencer, who says there is no meaningful difference. BUT, I think it's important, tactically, to act as if there IS a difference: for otherwise, the enemy, the threat we face, is simply too big. We can't take on the whole of Islam and all Muslims. But we can take on Islamism and extremist Muslims, with the help of Muslims, as well.
Update: Raymond Ibrahim expatiates on this issue as well:
What are the differences between the traditional Muslim and the so-called "Islamist"? As words dealing with Islam continue to morph and multiply, it is important to differentiate, for there are real, if subtle, differences.
...
one must first understand "Islamism"—a hybrid abomination of sorts, whereby the better principles of Western civilization are absorbed and rearticulated within a distinctly Muslim paradigm. For instance, the Western stress on human freedom, human dignity, and universal justice, is, for Islamists, transformed into a stress on Muslim freedom,Muslim dignity, and Muslim justice—all, naturally, at the sake of the infidel.
...
Lest it appear that Islamists are more "humane" than traditionalists, it should be kept in mind that the other—the non-Muslim—is viewed by both groups as the infidel enemy. In fact, whatever subtle differences may exist, the similarities between the Islamist and Muslim are many. Thus, while the traditional Sheikh and the Islamist argued over Mubarak's fate, there was never disagreement over two points—enmity for Israel and Jews, and the permissibility of using deceit to undermine them.
