Twelve intellectuals, calling themselves the "Group of Twelve," have drafted and signed a strongly-worded document, "The Manifesto of Twelve," calling for ideological resistance to Islamic fundamentalism. Published in the Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the controversial Mohammad cartoons, the document criticizes paranoia about "Islamophobia" and encourages worldwide promotion of secular values and freedom.
The document's pleas for universal freedom of expression and a global resurgence of critical thinking are admirable. There is emphasis on the fact that the "struggle," as the Group of Twelve understands it, is not a clash of civilizations or an East-West fracture, but a "global struggle between democrats and theocrats."
But while the Manifesto has its strong points, it is also ambiguous in its language and implications - and ambiguity in the discussion of such a controversial issue can only provoke increased anger, which is the last thing anyone needs right now.
The Group of Twelve is comprised of noted artists and intellectuals who surely understand the distinction between Islam the religion and its violent applications, and who surely are attuned to the importance of recognizing this distinction.
It is a distinction, however, that the Manifesto of Twelve does not acknowledge. In fact, the document encourages the use of generalizations by using the terms "Islam," "Islamism" and "Islamic totalitarianism" rather interchangeably. This ambiguity is troubling, and may serve to further alienate Muslims and widen an already-deep divide between the Muslim world and the West.
What is meant, exactly, by the term "Islamic totalitarianism"? How does it differ from Islamism? Can we understand Islam as a religion as distinct from Islamism or fundamentalism, and if so, how? The significance of these questions goes beyond semantics: those who seek to oppose "Islamism" need to know what they are opposing, and will not do themselves any favors by declaring undifferentiated war on Islam.
There is no denying that the violent wing of political Islam that endorses terror cannot be tolerated and should not be accommodated. But the language in the Manifesto of Twelve will undoubtedly be read as a call to resist the ideology of Islam itself. At a time when the West desperately wants to be understood as tolerant of Islam and its adherents, it is ironic that the European intellectual elite is calling for a "struggle" against Islam in its many varieties.
Islamism is the belief that the ideal political system is one governed by the tenets of Islam. And while Islamist organizations like al-Qaida and Hamas have historically sponsored terrorism, the philosophy of Islamism does not necessarily call for violence and is not necessarily a "global threat."
If a country democratically elects an Islamist government, have they instituted "Islamic totalitarianism"? And if they have, should this "Islamic totalitarianism" be seen as nothing more than an imposition by corrupt and exploitive leadership? Is it possible that something about Islamist government resonates with people because of their genuinely-held religious beliefs, and not purely because they are frustrated and foolish and easily-led? Should the whole world feel threatened by it? And if so, what steps should the world take to ensure that other countries don't democratically elect people it doesn't like?
Furthermore, the Manifesto carelessly overstates its case when it compares Islamic totalitarianism with Nazism. "Having vanquished Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism the world is facing a new global threat: Islamic totalitarianism," the Manifesto asserts in its opening line.
Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism were ideologies that were not based in religions. Collectively, they are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. While a particular application of any religion may be violent, the vast majority of religious people everywhere - including Muslims - are peaceful. Within ideologies like Stalinism, Nazism and fascism, there is little room for such diversity. In those cases, the problem is not the misapplication of a generally peaceful belief system - the ideologies themselves are the problems.
All efforts should be made to avoid conflating Islam in its many peaceful incarnations with the violence of Islam-inspired political terror. By endorsing the Manifesto, University Chaplain David O'Leary is endorsing a document that is careless in its language, and that may add insult to injury for many Muslims worldwide. The religion of Islam is not the threat. Let's be careful it doesn't become the target.
