An Occasional Reader asks me what I think about a recent article in the The Economist, "The truth and the lies about Islam in Europe", subtitled "Islam poses no serious danger. But Islamism and the fear of Islam do."
In a word: Bunk.
I've written on this subject since the very beginning of this blog. Because, since the beginning, there have been people desperate to find something nice about Islam. To find something to give hope that we may be able to co-exist peacefully with a supremacist religion and hit upon this formula: the one that The Economist is belatedly pushing on us: "It's not Islam, it's Islamism!". There we go, problem solved.
No, it's not.
Think about it. The formulation "Islam is no danger; Islamism is" makes about as much sense as saying "Communism is no danger; Communists are".
I wrote again about this on 10th September this year, the eve of 911 in "There is NO moderate Islam | True Truths on the eve of 911", where I said:
Can I ever forget, twenty five years ago, early evening here in Hong Kong, when we heard that an airliner had crashed into the World Trade Center? The North Tower. And then a second plane. Which we saw live, in real time, before even the CNN reporter who was face-to-camera, back to the burning North Tower. At which I turned to my wife and said “it’s got to be Al-Qaeda”.
Can we forget?
Can I ever forget the next day, president Bush standing on the smoking rubble, declaring “we’ll get them”? But also declaring “Islam is a religion of peace”.
At which I thought “huh?”. How does that square with what we’ve just seen? How can it be a “religion of peace” when we already knew, to a moral certainty, that men driven by this very religion had done it? Had hijacked and flown planes into two towers full of innocent people?
Which started me on my quest to learn about this “religion of peace”. On my first reading of the Quran. Of the Hadith. Of the Sirah of Muhammad. Of the Umdat Al-Salik, the Classic Manual of Islamic Jurisprudence. And my library, now in the many hundreds, of books on Islam from the apologetics to the critical.
I concluded early on that “Islam is Islam”. Its most pious votaries say so. Its religious leaders say so. Its political leaders say so. All knowledgeable observers say so.
At the same time I recognised the tactical reason for saying there’s “Islam” and there’s “Islamism”. Tackling the massive thing that is worldwide Islam is too tough. Tackling a subset is more doable.
We’ve now reached a point in the west where the dangers of Islam to our societies, to our freedoms and tolerance are so apparent that we have to face the real truth. The uncomfortable truth. That the problem is Islam itself. The problem is its doctrines. Its values. That it’s an ideology more than it is a religion. That that ideology is incompatible with western enlightenment values.
It's simply not true that Islam itself is "no serious danger". As I've shown by data, there is no country in the world that has over 7% of its population that is Muslim, and which has a perfect score on the Human Development Index which measures a wide variety of social and political freedoms. The more the percentage of Islam, the lower the rank of Human Development. See my: “Freedom and Islam; a statistical survey”
It's The Economist that's not telling us the truth on this. It's The Economist that's telling us the lie, in a mildly reworked format, that "Islam is not the danger", that Islam is a "Religion of Peace".
As Christopher Hitchens noted, "the extremists of a 'Religion of Peace', will be extremely peaceful". Sadly, we know, to our cost in blood and toil, that the opposite is the case.
================
"Islam or Islamist", my post of 31 October 2011
Want more? Punch in Islamism to the Search Box on the right, and you'll come up with many pieces I've posted since starting this blog in 2009.
Shorter me: You can find subtle differences between "Islam" and "Islamism". But they are small and essentially meaningless. As in:
"Islamism is the snake in the grass. Islam is the grass".






