Politicians, rulers, pundits and
the media have coined the catch-all word
"Islamist" to represent a whole bunch of different
Muslims. The "Islamist" label has been
internationally adopted and carries an
increasingly divisive and confrontational message.
Just look at when and how it is used.
The
United States feared the overthrow of Hosni
Mubarak in Egypt because "Islamists" would come to
power. Egyptian generals who hijacked the
revolution vowed to prevent Egypt falling into the
hands of "Islamists". Saudi Arabia sent troops to
Bahrain to fight "Islamists" who threatened the
stability of the region. The AK
(Justice and Development)
Party in Turkey is acceptable to a whole host of
people because it is only mildly "Islamist".
Today, Bashar Al-Assad justifies murdering those
that oppose his tyrannical rule in Syria by the
tens of thousands because they are "Islamists" and
terrorists, and Russia says that it is supporting
Assad for the fear of "Islamists".
Essentially, the religion - Islam - is
used by all manner of people (including Muslims)
as a blanket term for anyone opposing those in
power. Be they peaceful protestors demanding their
simple human rights and economic justice from
their government, or terrorists who kill innocent
people in an effort to overthrow a ruling regime,
they are all labeled "Islamist". Yet, those most
often tagged as "Islamist" don't represent the
core values of this religious label. They don't
adhere to the most important teachings of Islam as
represented in its holy book, the Koran, and
interpreted by the Messenger of the religion, the
Prophet Mohammad.
In fact, Islam's
foundational principles stipulate the sanctity of
all life, freedom of choice including religious
freedom, the popular selection of rulers, social
and economic justice with equality before the law,
education, strong institutions,and the equitable
sharing of national wealth (such as oil and gas in
the ground) with every generation; and admonition
against poverty, hoarding, opulence, large wealth
and income disparity, corruption and oppressive
leaders.
Are these the characteristics of
all those labeled "Islamists?" No.
But it
is specifically because of these fundamental
teachings that parties and groups lobbying under
any kind of an Islamic banner attract so many
followers. They afford the known umbrella of
Islam, a religion that emphasizes justice, equity
and charity. The vast popularity of the Islamic
umbrella is also invariably the only one somewhat
tolerated by secular autocratic rulers, for fear
of unrest in the streets.
This false
labeling of so many groups, most often terrorists,
as "Islamists" is offensive to devout Muslims and
is harmful to better international relations,
because the word "Islamist" conveys a false
impression of Islam and Islamic teachings, and
portrays Islam as the enemy of the non-Muslim
world.
Indeed, no religion in the world
except Islam is used as a catchword for anyone
considered a threat.
On the basis of these
objective measures of Islamic teachings, the
governments in the Middle East who use the threat
of "Islamists" to justify their oppressive rule
are not Islamic either. Indeed, they have little
interest in building good institutions and
supporting the rule of law to promote human and
economic development. If they did, better
institutions would afford the basis for their
peaceful removal in favor of elected governments
and rulers.
They are compromising the
lives of millions of people who deserve a better
chance. Consequently, these societies have been
held back in every way - socially, politically and
economically. As long as they rule and are
supported by the West, Russia and China, progress
will be limited and anti-Western sentiments and
conflicts will thrive.
In short, the word
"Islamist" is popularly linked in the minds of
most readers to the presumed teachings of Islam as
embodied in the Koran. But nothing could be
further from the truth. It is a misrepresentation
that must be broken and dispelled.
Just
this one simple step would improve relations
between the Muslim and non-Muslim world and
ameliorate the conduct of US foreign policy.
Non-Muslims would not see Islam and its teachings
as the enemy. Autocratic Middle East rulers would
find it more difficult to use the threat of
"Islamists" or "fundamentalists" as a
justification for harsh dictatorial rule. The
identification of the West as a supporter of
corrupt rulers would be reduced in Middle Eastern
eyes.
In the West itself, citizens would
begin to see that the real threat to their
national interests is support for illegitimate and
corrupt rulers who rule for personal financial
gain, take from their national treasuries and
evade the International Criminal Court.
In
the wake of popular democratic movements
burgeoning across the Middle East, the Muslim
citizenry in the Middle East will see many of
those "Islamists" waiting in the wings to take
over for what they are - opportunists of a
different shade. Once these so-called "Islamists"
assume power, they are likely to follow in the
footsteps of the overthrown tyrants -
consolidating absolute power and imposing
constitutions that support their autocratic rule
to amass fortunes with different cronies and
foreign partners. The cycle would continue.
Muslims have little need for opportunist
leaders to interpret their religion, denying them
elected leaders and governments, robbing them of
their national wealth, refusing them the right to
justice and precluding even the hope of human,
political, social and economic progress in the
future.
The world can help by dropping the
"Islamist" label to describe any and all groups
opposing tyrants, whether they are made up of
peaceful Muslims or al-Qaeda. For some of these
groups tagged under the "Islamist" banner,
"Mislamist" may be a more accurate term.
Hossein Askari is Professor of
Business and International Affairs at the George
Washington University.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
