Yes, to the term "Islamists"

Submitted by J.S. (Canada), Aug 22, 2006 at 16:44

I think the term "Islamist" is the best choice (for now, anyway). I recall reading a text by a NPR person (book was published in the early 90s?). She seemed to be one of those types in love with radical Islam (I'm always puzzled by why these NPR types don't convert).. As I recall, she interviewed some radical Islamist. Interestingly, the Islamist was very offended by the term "terrorist" -- he claimed that "violence" wasn't always necessary; that is, nation states could be destroyed just as easily through peaceful means (demographics, politics, pro-Islamist education, propaganda, etc.), as they could be through violent means.

Thus, an Islamist does not necessarily engage in "terrorism;" he could be a "pacifist" (but working with the same agenda -- destruction of the West, turning democracies into Islamic states, etc.). (Another problem with the term "fascist" is that it would tend to bring to mind the Red Scare of the 50s (the threat of the Communists, all a big "hoax" -- spread by the hysterics -- people like Joe McCarthy, etc.), thus, it may be best to avoid the term "fascist."

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".