Islamist Watch: Difference between revisions
John Leach (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "Islamist" to "Islamist") |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "David Horowitz Freedom Center" to "David Horowitz Freedom Center") |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
Established in 2004 by the [[Middle East Forum]], supported by the | Established in 2004 by the [[Middle East Forum]], supported by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, '''Islamist Watch''' combats the ideas and institutions of nonviolent, radical Islam in the United States and other Western countries. It exposes the far-reaching goals of Islamists, works to reduce their power, and seeks to strengthen moderate Muslims." Differentiating between Islamists and [[Islam|Muslims]], it asserts "Islamists ultimately seek hegemonic control via a worldwide caliphate that applies the Islamic law in full. Afghanistan under the Taliban offers one model of what they would establish globally."<ref>{{citation | ||
| http://www.islamist-watch.org/about.php | | http://www.islamist-watch.org/about.php | ||
| title = About Islamic Watch | | title = About Islamic Watch |
Revision as of 11:01, 15 April 2024
Established in 2004 by the Middle East Forum, supported by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Islamist Watch combats the ideas and institutions of nonviolent, radical Islam in the United States and other Western countries. It exposes the far-reaching goals of Islamists, works to reduce their power, and seeks to strengthen moderate Muslims." Differentiating between Islamists and Muslims, it asserts "Islamists ultimately seek hegemonic control via a worldwide caliphate that applies the Islamic law in full. Afghanistan under the Taliban offers one model of what they would establish globally."[1]
"Terrorism is one method to advance these projects but it is not the only one. Indeed, the activities of nonviolent Islamists arguably will prove a more effective tactic in the long term. For while the public intuitively understands the threat of terrorism and is mobilized by it, and while states have well-developed institutions (law enforcement, intelligence agencies, the military, the justice system) to protect and fight against it, the activities of nonviolent extremists are not alarming and institutions do not exist to deal with this problem. And how can terrorists impose their will on whole societies?
"Quietly, lawfully, peacefully, Islamists do their work throughout the West to impose aspects of Islamic law, win special privileges for themselves, shut down criticism of Islam, create Muslim-only zones, and deprive women and non-Muslims of their full civil rights.
Its website gives a number of examples of legal Islamist activities it considers inappropriate. The challenge, for a pluralistic society, would be to substitute other religious terminology and determine if these would violate Constitutional standards. Unquestionably, in at least in U.S. legal traditions, some of the points are highly questionable, such as leading school prayer of any sort, banning jury membership based on religion, or forcing U.S. troops to wear religious garments. Following the logic, however, what about monasteries, convents, or Amish villages? If it is inappropriate to have an envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), why is it appropriate to have a U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See?
References
|