7/12/2008: Commentary: Islamic Vs Islamist: Righteous Beliver vs
Political Ideology:

Why do today's "Militant Islamists" violate the traditional rules of
Islam to maximize their violence?

They do this because their motivation comes from politics in the first
place, not religion. Bin Laden tried to justify his call for
indiscriminate killing by arguing, “American history does not
distinguish between civilians and military, and not even women and
children. They are the ones who used the bombs against Nagasaki.” This
is a political argument, not a religious one. It is about the role of
America in the world; not the status of non-Muslims in the Koran.

It is no accident that there is indeed some ideological connection
between Marxism-Leninism and Islamism. And no one proclaimed this as
bluntly as Carlos the Jackal, who, from his prison cell, penned
recently a book titled “Revolutionary Islam.” This brand of Islam,
argued the veteran terrorist, "attacks the ruling classes in order to
achieve a more equitable redistribution of wealth" and is the only
"transnational force capable of standing up to the enslavement of
nations." This is, again, an argument about not God and salvation,
but politics and revolution. The problem is, in other words, Islamism
but not Islam. Therefore the fight against terror in the name of Islam
has to be focused on this idea. Detaching Islam from Islamism. This
does not necessarily mean to separate Islam and politics all together,
as secularists assume. Islam indeed can influence politics, and that's
all welcome as far as this takes place within the framework of
democracy. If it is possible to synthesize Islam with totalitarianism
as the Islamists do, then it is possible to synthesize it with
liberalism as well.

To sum up, the "true Jihadist", fighters in jihad, are enjoined not to
kill women, children, and the aged unless they attack first, not to
torture or mutilate prisoners, to give fair warning of the resumption
of hostilities after a truce, and to honor agreements. The medieval
jurists and theologians discuss at some length the rules of warfare,
including questions such as which weapons are permitted and which are
not. There is even some discussion in medieval texts of the lawfulness
of missile and chemical warfare, the one relating to mangonels and
catapults, the other to poison-tipped arrows and the poisoning of
enemy water supplies. Some jurists permit, some restrict, some
disapprove of the use of these weapons. The stated reason for concern
is the indiscriminate casualties that they inflict. At no point do the
basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder. At no point, as far
as I am aware, do they even consider the random slaughter of
uninvolved bystanders.

Today's militant Islamists however, from al Qaeda to Islamic Jihad,
openly advocate and practice the random slaughter of uninvolved
bystanders. Osama Bin Laden repeatedly said that his followers should
“kill American and Jews,” without making any distinction between
civilians and combatants. That's why al Qaeda terrorists unhesitantly
hit the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. They knew they were
killing civilians, but they did not care about the prophet's call for
“not to kill women, children, and the aged.” And the gunmen who hit
the U.S. Consulate last Wednesday would probably target the diplomatic
personnel had they been able to break into the building.

Conclusion: The difference between “Islamic” and “Islamist” is
crucial, because while one refers to a religion, the other refers to
an ideology. While Islam teaches the path to win God's consent by
being a righteous believer, Islamism envisions a roadmap to establish
a totalitarian political system. And while Islam has existed since the
early seventh century, Islamism has been around only since the early
20th century. One should never combine the two into one for then we
hear, "Islam is under attack" and that is not what is occurring and
this causes more hatred and mis-understanding.