"Like in most religions, most adherents of Islam are kind, welcoming, peaceful, and productive." Those first few words are important. It's important not to judge people by the extremists of their faith, whether that's Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Sikh, pagan or anything else, and calling out extremism is not the same as being prejudiced against a religion.
Simple question: was Mohammed an exponent of Islam or Islamism? Did he slaughter those who opposed him or even spoke against him? Did he wage wars of conquest and force his enemies into conversion or submission?
You can interpret it in many ways. For example, Muhammad never conquered anything out of Arabia (he never even fully unite it), and his idea was to unite clans and tribes. Also, Mecca Quran is different from Medina Quran, and Jews in Medina for example coexisted with Muslims (in fact, a majority of Medinans were Jews I believe).
Holy books of all major religions - Judaism, Christianity, Islam - have advocated for violence to spread the ideas of that religion. However, Judaism and Christianity have mellowed down and a majority of their followers have stopped interpreting their religious books literally. There are hard core followers of these two religions who still want to follow their books , but they are insignificantly small or in case of Judaism too weak and are contained in Israel.
In case of Islam the religion has not been able to mellow down because of following reasons:
1. Their book uses much harsher language to scare anyone who wants to not interpret it literally.
2. Significantly a larger % of followers - still a minority of all followers but much more than other two religions - still believes in interpreting their religious books literally. The ones who don't want to follow literally are scared and dare not condemn/criticize openly.
3. Thus Islam is not a religion of peace. Most politicians refrain from saying this loud and clear.
As mentioned in the article a majority of followers of Islam are good , peace loving people but they are scared to criticize the actions of their co-religionists who advocate for violence.
Yes there are many reasons why it has a stronger share of radicals.
I think most people miss a crucial one: oil.
An inordinate share of oil reserves are in Muslim countries, and oil doesn't require human capital to produce wealth. As such, many Muslim countries haven't had as much pressure to improve human capital, which in turn requires commerce, collaboration with others.
We see it time and time again: Some of the countries that historically supported Islamism the most were the biggest oil and gas producers (Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabism, Qatar, Iran). They went on to fund a lot of the growth of Islamism abroad.
Countries or areas that didn't have oil, yet developed, are consistently more moderate, like Dubai, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey (with a slide back in this last case).
That's why I have the hope that the end of oil will bring a serious renaissance in Islam in the coming 2 decades
Tomas, this article changed my perspective. Drawing the distinction between Islam (a personal religion) and Islamism (a coercive political ideology) is a powerful light that clarifies the entire debate. It helps defend moderate Muslims and fight extremism without falling into the trap of Islamophobia. Thank you so much for this very important work.
Tomas - this is one of your most important articles since the COVID ones that made you famous (ish ?). Moderate Muslim countries do not tolerate Islamist preaching for example. The distinction is very important and key. I hope some mainstream news sources pick this up soon. Best always, Jenna
I hope this distinction gains currency to afford Muslims their constitutional rights in the US, and to clear up the Zionism accusations rampant in current political discussions. Although Israel was established as a Jewish political state, Israel is not anti-Muslim. Israel was established as a country with freedom of religion, and bears no ill will towards peaceful neighbors like UAE. As a Cuban refugee to this capitalist US, I cannot help but think that eventually the principles of capitalist self-interest will bring Peace to the Middle East and the whole world. I think the descendants of the people who preserved European Liberal values during the Dark Ages would now profit from cooperating with Israel as a way of moving towards peace and prosperity.
How about calling out the Christian zealots/fanatics who are trying to do the same in the same of Christ?
"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine." – Adolf Hitler
“Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love." - H.L. Mencken, 1925
Absolutely! ANY political extremism is bad, whether it comes from Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Communism, Fascism, or any other.
The focus on Islamism is justified by its prevalence. I don't think it's a coincidence that you had to look for quotes that are a century old to support a case of problematic Christian fanatism. Tell me of a serious Christian movement that is trying to spread in non-Christian countries through coercion, and I'll call it out too.
The comments this week Christian bigot Pete Hegseth is making in the secular nation of the US come to mind.
“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." – Treaty of Tripoli Article 11, approved unanimously by the United States Congress (1796)
A great article, thank you Tomas. Respect for having courage to write on such a sensitive topic! I disagree only on the Preacher Calls: I think demanding to have Preacher Calls in a Western Non-Muslim country is a sign of Islamism, not Islam, because it expands the private religion into public space and "conquers" it. Of course you could argue that church bells are "conquering" public space too, but my counter argument would be that we can give church bells an exception for historical/cultural reasons (since they have been part of the European culture for 15 centuries or so).
Maybe you're right. There are some honest grey areas there—some of which I'd like to explore—and this is one of them. Other examples include the hijab and public prayers.
It is also important to understand the issue of zealotry in any religion. The west used to have Christian zealots willing to die or kill for the cause in the 14-1600s. Zealotry is what is dangerous - not the religion itself.
I wonder what you think Mosab Hassan Yousef, whom you mention, thinks about the distinction between Islam and Islamism... Ex-Muslims have a thing or two to say
Mentioning Mosab I agree is a tricky one. He is kind of a firebrand and perhaps not the best person to quote. I think the quotes from the UAE leaders etc are less controversial speakers.
Or maybe Mosab is indeed someone who should be quoted. AFAIK in order for Islamism not to take root, there needs to be active vigilance and repression from the state. Is the kind of Islam in the UAE proper Islam? If a religion requires constant policing and monitoring of what's being taught in mosques, if a piece of text so consistently gives rise to problems time and time again, maybe there's a deep and fundamental problem with it.
“Proper Islam” is also tricky - all the Abrahamic religions have some texts which are very extreme sounding today (eye for an eye kind of thing) Vast majority of Jews and Christians nowadays don’t think that these should be interpreted literally even if they are in the biblical texts. But in the Middle Ages they did.
maybe -2 points to Christianity, -3/-4 to Judaism, or even -10, idk, but how many naughty boy points should be assigned to Islam and its authentic teachings? I really wonder what value you would assign Islam if Christianity/Judaism are in the (0,-10) range. Maybe just -15 for Islam? Or maybe you would even put Islam in the same (0, -10) bracket as Christianity/Judaism? Please tell me where you would rank Islam - would it be just 2-3 times "worse" than them? x10 worse? Or on equal footing? Or more than x10? Or maybe there isn't an objective way to compare them? (I think there is)
How would you rank the extreme-sounding parts of the 3 religions?
The Bible can also be interpreted in violent ways, and was for centuries. Islam was not as aggressive just one century ago. Everything goes in phases. I think the current one is fueled by oil and gas.
Yes, one book might be more prone than another in violence, but both are capable of both peace and violence, so it's up to us to push them to lean in the right direction.
It's also the more realistic approach, since there are 2B Muslims.
This article is well researched but fails to quote the Quran, my question is which of the people in this article were following the teachings of the Quran most closely (or which stream of theologically sound interpretations are they following). Your comparisons of the two versions of Islam included "I" statements, not interpretations of the Quran. "I" statements are cultural reflections, not theologically grounded. When you talk about religion, it must be grounded in the texts.
I hear you. Yes, it could be useful to show how the Quran can be interpreted in many different ways, and why it´s interpreted in the ways in which it is. That is a very different article though. You're asking why there are moderates and why there are Islamists, and whether they are both are legitimate. I'm parting from the assumption that they are, having looked enough into this to understand why, and more importantly acknowledging that it must be true since hundreds of millions of Muslims interpret their religion differently
I didn't mean it as "these are Muslims and look at how they talk about Muslims in their community" but rather "this is how a community can communicate its moderation to itself and the rest of society". I realize this was poorly phrased, and might not be the best example, so I deleted it. Thanks!
"Like in most religions, most adherents of Islam are kind, welcoming, peaceful, and productive." Those first few words are important. It's important not to judge people by the extremists of their faith, whether that's Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Sikh, pagan or anything else, and calling out extremism is not the same as being prejudiced against a religion.
Agreed!
Simple question: was Mohammed an exponent of Islam or Islamism? Did he slaughter those who opposed him or even spoke against him? Did he wage wars of conquest and force his enemies into conversion or submission?
You can interpret it in many ways. For example, Muhammad never conquered anything out of Arabia (he never even fully unite it), and his idea was to unite clans and tribes. Also, Mecca Quran is different from Medina Quran, and Jews in Medina for example coexisted with Muslims (in fact, a majority of Medinans were Jews I believe).
Holy books of all major religions - Judaism, Christianity, Islam - have advocated for violence to spread the ideas of that religion. However, Judaism and Christianity have mellowed down and a majority of their followers have stopped interpreting their religious books literally. There are hard core followers of these two religions who still want to follow their books , but they are insignificantly small or in case of Judaism too weak and are contained in Israel.
In case of Islam the religion has not been able to mellow down because of following reasons:
1. Their book uses much harsher language to scare anyone who wants to not interpret it literally.
2. Significantly a larger % of followers - still a minority of all followers but much more than other two religions - still believes in interpreting their religious books literally. The ones who don't want to follow literally are scared and dare not condemn/criticize openly.
3. Thus Islam is not a religion of peace. Most politicians refrain from saying this loud and clear.
As mentioned in the article a majority of followers of Islam are good , peace loving people but they are scared to criticize the actions of their co-religionists who advocate for violence.
Yes there are many reasons why it has a stronger share of radicals.
I think most people miss a crucial one: oil.
An inordinate share of oil reserves are in Muslim countries, and oil doesn't require human capital to produce wealth. As such, many Muslim countries haven't had as much pressure to improve human capital, which in turn requires commerce, collaboration with others.
We see it time and time again: Some of the countries that historically supported Islamism the most were the biggest oil and gas producers (Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabism, Qatar, Iran). They went on to fund a lot of the growth of Islamism abroad.
Countries or areas that didn't have oil, yet developed, are consistently more moderate, like Dubai, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey (with a slide back in this last case).
That's why I have the hope that the end of oil will bring a serious renaissance in Islam in the coming 2 decades
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/the-future-of-petrostates-after-oil
Tomas, this article changed my perspective. Drawing the distinction between Islam (a personal religion) and Islamism (a coercive political ideology) is a powerful light that clarifies the entire debate. It helps defend moderate Muslims and fight extremism without falling into the trap of Islamophobia. Thank you so much for this very important work.
Tomas - this is one of your most important articles since the COVID ones that made you famous (ish ?). Moderate Muslim countries do not tolerate Islamist preaching for example. The distinction is very important and key. I hope some mainstream news sources pick this up soon. Best always, Jenna
It feels like it from the inside, I'm glad you feel it too!
I hope this distinction gains currency to afford Muslims their constitutional rights in the US, and to clear up the Zionism accusations rampant in current political discussions. Although Israel was established as a Jewish political state, Israel is not anti-Muslim. Israel was established as a country with freedom of religion, and bears no ill will towards peaceful neighbors like UAE. As a Cuban refugee to this capitalist US, I cannot help but think that eventually the principles of capitalist self-interest will bring Peace to the Middle East and the whole world. I think the descendants of the people who preserved European Liberal values during the Dark Ages would now profit from cooperating with Israel as a way of moving towards peace and prosperity.
I commend you for a brave attempt, even though I really disagree! But you have made me think, which I am grateful for.
Do share your disagreement!
How about calling out the Christian zealots/fanatics who are trying to do the same in the same of Christ?
"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine." – Adolf Hitler
“Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love." - H.L. Mencken, 1925
Absolutely! ANY political extremism is bad, whether it comes from Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Communism, Fascism, or any other.
The focus on Islamism is justified by its prevalence. I don't think it's a coincidence that you had to look for quotes that are a century old to support a case of problematic Christian fanatism. Tell me of a serious Christian movement that is trying to spread in non-Christian countries through coercion, and I'll call it out too.
The comments this week Christian bigot Pete Hegseth is making in the secular nation of the US come to mind.
“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." – Treaty of Tripoli Article 11, approved unanimously by the United States Congress (1796)
A great article, thank you Tomas. Respect for having courage to write on such a sensitive topic! I disagree only on the Preacher Calls: I think demanding to have Preacher Calls in a Western Non-Muslim country is a sign of Islamism, not Islam, because it expands the private religion into public space and "conquers" it. Of course you could argue that church bells are "conquering" public space too, but my counter argument would be that we can give church bells an exception for historical/cultural reasons (since they have been part of the European culture for 15 centuries or so).
Maybe you're right. There are some honest grey areas there—some of which I'd like to explore—and this is one of them. Other examples include the hijab and public prayers.
It is also important to understand the issue of zealotry in any religion. The west used to have Christian zealots willing to die or kill for the cause in the 14-1600s. Zealotry is what is dangerous - not the religion itself.
Agreed
I wonder what you think Mosab Hassan Yousef, whom you mention, thinks about the distinction between Islam and Islamism... Ex-Muslims have a thing or two to say
Mentioning Mosab I agree is a tricky one. He is kind of a firebrand and perhaps not the best person to quote. I think the quotes from the UAE leaders etc are less controversial speakers.
Or maybe Mosab is indeed someone who should be quoted. AFAIK in order for Islamism not to take root, there needs to be active vigilance and repression from the state. Is the kind of Islam in the UAE proper Islam? If a religion requires constant policing and monitoring of what's being taught in mosques, if a piece of text so consistently gives rise to problems time and time again, maybe there's a deep and fundamental problem with it.
“Proper Islam” is also tricky - all the Abrahamic religions have some texts which are very extreme sounding today (eye for an eye kind of thing) Vast majority of Jews and Christians nowadays don’t think that these should be interpreted literally even if they are in the biblical texts. But in the Middle Ages they did.
Sure, but if you had to rank them, how would you?
maybe -2 points to Christianity, -3/-4 to Judaism, or even -10, idk, but how many naughty boy points should be assigned to Islam and its authentic teachings? I really wonder what value you would assign Islam if Christianity/Judaism are in the (0,-10) range. Maybe just -15 for Islam? Or maybe you would even put Islam in the same (0, -10) bracket as Christianity/Judaism? Please tell me where you would rank Islam - would it be just 2-3 times "worse" than them? x10 worse? Or on equal footing? Or more than x10? Or maybe there isn't an objective way to compare them? (I think there is)
How would you rank the extreme-sounding parts of the 3 religions?
The Bible can also be interpreted in violent ways, and was for centuries. Islam was not as aggressive just one century ago. Everything goes in phases. I think the current one is fueled by oil and gas.
Yes, one book might be more prone than another in violence, but both are capable of both peace and violence, so it's up to us to push them to lean in the right direction.
It's also the more realistic approach, since there are 2B Muslims.
This article is well researched but fails to quote the Quran, my question is which of the people in this article were following the teachings of the Quran most closely (or which stream of theologically sound interpretations are they following). Your comparisons of the two versions of Islam included "I" statements, not interpretations of the Quran. "I" statements are cultural reflections, not theologically grounded. When you talk about religion, it must be grounded in the texts.
I hear you. Yes, it could be useful to show how the Quran can be interpreted in many different ways, and why it´s interpreted in the ways in which it is. That is a very different article though. You're asking why there are moderates and why there are Islamists, and whether they are both are legitimate. I'm parting from the assumption that they are, having looked enough into this to understand why, and more importantly acknowledging that it must be true since hundreds of millions of Muslims interpret their religion differently
Sikhs are not Muslims.
https://unchartedterritories.substack.com/p/islamismophobia?r=36xnz&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=273262134
Sikhs are not Muslims - am I misreading the reason why you include the Sikh example?
I didn't mean it as "these are Muslims and look at how they talk about Muslims in their community" but rather "this is how a community can communicate its moderation to itself and the rest of society". I realize this was poorly phrased, and might not be the best example, so I deleted it. Thanks!