Unless he posts here as "trustme" or "Hydhypedplaya" or as one of the other usual suspects, I would say no. But I have no idea what exactly he believes. I don't remember having read any public statements by him that would indicate he is.
There are many possible definitions. I think this one is rather accurate: Islamism is an ideology that demands man's complete adherence to the sacred law of Islam and rejects as much as possible outside influence, with some exceptions (such as access to military and medical technology). It is imbued with a deep antagonism towards non-Muslims and has a particular hostility towards the West. It amounts to an effort to turn Islam, a religion and civilization, into an ideology.
...a made up definition for a made up word. I dont have hostility towards the West, does that take me out of the running for the "Islamist" title?
Islamophobia is an ideology that demands man's complete adherence to the hatred of Islam and rejects as much as possible Islam influence, with no exceptions. It is imbued with a deep antagonism towards Muslims and has a particular hostility towards the Muslim world. It amounts to an effort to turn Islam, a religion and civilization, into an object of unconditional hatred.
It is actually a tricky question, one that even muslims themselves have trouble answering sometimes, I believe. Here is another article that addresses the issue: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/22/is-it-islamic-or-islamist.html Is It Islamic or Islamist? The West’s confusion spells trouble. Now that even the tolerant, liberal Swedes have elected an anti-Islam party to their Parliament, it’s pretty clear that such controversies are mounting because both the left and the right are confused over the politics of Islam. The left is wrongly defending Islamism—an extremist and at times violent ideology—which it confuses with the common person’s Islam, while the right is often wrongly attacking the Muslim faith, which it confuses with Islamism. Western thinkers must begin to recognize the difference between Islamism and Islam, or we are headed toward an ideologically defined battle with one quarter of humanity. At least a few on the left are defending Islamism because they think that they are defending Islam. Recently, a European policymaker told us that she had become sympathetic to Turkey’s governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) because “in the post-September 11 world, I wanted to defend Islam.” Well, the AKP, and other Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world, do not represent Islam. These Islamist parties, even when not using violence, stand for an ideology that is illiberal to its core—for instance, its refusal to recognize gender equality. In the same way that communism once claimed to speak for the working class, Islamism claims to represent Muslims. By defending radical Islamist movements, the left is helping only to give Muslims a bad name. The left ought to side not with so-called moderate Islamist parties, but rather with liberal Muslim movements, such as the Republican People’s Party in Turkey and the pro-democracy movement in Egypt, which support gender equality. The right, on the other hand, often targets Islam while thinking that it is attacking Islamism. Banning the building of minarets, as Switzerland did, is exactly the wrong thing to do. The problem is not a mosque; the problem is a mosque used to promote violence, jihadism, and illiberal Islamism. The crimes of Al Qaeda, Hizbullah, and other groups are rooted in jihadist Islamism, which advocates violence to impose extremist dogma on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In response, right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders and other nativist politicians in Europe have suggested a ban on Islam itself by criminalizing the Islamic holy book, the Quran. Wilders should take note that not even Stalin was able to ban religion. It’s hard to believe that a politician in liberal Europe can suggest outlawing a faith, but that is what the confusion over Islam has come to. What is more shocking is that Wilders’s anti-Islam party emerged as the third-largest political force in the latest Dutch elections. The group has proposed responding to acts of Islamist terror by taxing Muslim women’s headscarves. What a shame for the right, which is supposed to stand for religious freedom and should stand for freedom of Islam, even while targeting jihadist Islamist groups. The confusion over Islam has real consequences. When was the last time you read a piece by a leftist intellectual criticizing how the AKP is trampling media freedoms in Turkey? Or the Muslim Brotherhood’s refusal to recognize equal rights for women and Christians in Egypt? By defending Islamism, liberals are strengthening one of the biggest threats facing Muslims and Western liberalism alike. Meanwhile, by targeting the Muslim faith, the right is alienating potential allies in the Muslim community: conservative Muslims who want to practice their faith and despise Al Qaeda’s vision. As they try to promote religious values in the secularized and quite often atheistic or agnostic West, right-wing politicians will find natural allies in conservative Muslims. If Western intellectuals do not get rid of this confusion now, we are headed down a dangerous path. Common people in the West will start to bundle all Muslims with Islamists, picking a potentially losing battle with one quarter of humanity. This clash of civilizations is what Al Qaeda wanted to trigger with the attacks on September 11. The West and its intellectuals should be smarter than Al Qaeda. Abaza is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Cagaptay is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Actually, I think you are just not intelligent or educated, yet post a lot of nonsense, I guess that takes you out of the running for being taken seriously in any way.
This should be tattooed on ATW's forehead because it defines his entire identity as this board knows it.
I know your book tells you to fight non-believers, but tattooing something on someone's forehead is a bit cruel, don't you think? Or do you think it would be in accordance with what your book tells you to do?
I didn't take the test, but I would nearly take pride in the fact that I'm sure I wouldn't notice any differences based solely upon style of either correctly quoted or incorrectly quoted words well enough to have pride in it or any feeling of superiority over someone else that I assumed would be worse at it than I. how's that for a run-on? It's my new style that I plan to use when threads like this occur. It's to symbolize the eternal lasting qualities that I want my sentiments to embody. I hope to be able to discern my own thoughts and styles as ambiguously referenced among random clutchbbs threads throughout the years in or out of context. That or I just didn't wanna divvy it up.
Oh, but you know exactly what trustme and I believe? You have the audacity to call someone unintelligent and uneducated, yet you are always the Nazi moron who spews ignorant rhetoric. Your intellect is as laughable as your common sense.
