Language Obscures Reality

Submitted by myth (Germany), Jun 4, 2012 at 05:51

Djererijan obscures reality by means of language. Let me go through the quotes in this article:

1. "the role of religion" is a false abstraction of reality. That reality is: it is precisely one religion, namely Islam, that plays a role in the Middle East.
2. "variously labeled political Islam, the Islamic revival, or Islamic fundamentalism" despite the adverb "variously" ignores that the Islamists themselves call this "Islam", nothing more.
3. Djererijan swaps the meanings of "ideal" and "belief". He attributes "ideal" to Islam and "belief" to the Western values. In reality "belief" falls into the category of religion. One reads "Islamic ideals" as opposed to "we believe in the principle".
4. He attributes a harder substance to Islam as compared to Western Democracy when he characterizes "firmly grounded in Islamic principles" as compared to the softer "we believe in the principle". This contradicts his soft evaluation "considerable diversity in how these ideals are expressed". The goal to base a government on Islam is common to all Islamists, no diversity on that matter.
5. Djererijan hides the identity of the islamists using "groups of movements" and "those who". But who are they? Given they exist across the thousands of miles covering "countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa" I ask - who are they?
6. The text frequently uses negations: "*no* monolithic or coordinated international effort behind these movements", "religion is *not* a determinant", "the U.S. government does *not* view Islam as the next 'ism', "The Cold War is *not* being replaced(...)". This indicates that the author is worried about exactly what he negates: A coordinated international movement determined by Islamic ideology directed against the West replacing the Cold War.

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".