Incorrect.

Submitted by tstephan (Luxembourg), Dec 5, 2010 at 21:10

You state a faulty equivalency in justifying the difference islam/islamism by the distinction between a muslim and an islamist. This is a flagrant fallacy. The fact that all muslims aren't serious activists does not imply that there are 2 forms of islam. It only means that some don't take it seriously.

Your second justification is based on the fact that the muslim countries were more liberal a century ago. Here again you use the inevitable fluctualtion of the application of islamic law over the ages to conclude that the strict application of sharia proves that there is a separate entity called "islamism" that is distinct from islam. This doesn't hold water either as through the ages there were always Akbars and Aurangzebs, and just because the formers were lenient and neglected islam surely doesn't mean that those that are rigorous belong to a special version of islam. This is totally icoherent.

And yes, persisting in blaming a perverted version of islam gives the "real" islam a free pass to keep advancing. ... By confusing the debate and offering a scapegoat for islam you make it impossible to fight islam, and yet this is the one and only solution.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".