Islam vs. Islamists: Who Defines the Difference?

By Stacey Pistritto on 07 June 2007

The race is on to define the ‘real face’ of Islam. Political and religious figures from across the ideological spectrum are promoting themselves as the true exemplars of Muslim life and faith. But often, the only thing these figures have in common is a tacit recognition of the central tenets of Islam: Allah is God and Muhammed is his messenger.

So which voice is correct? Is it possible to define something as amorphous as a 1400-year-old religion with over a billion adherents worldwide in such disparate locations as India, Sudan and Denmark? How do you honestly represent a faith that fully one-fifth of the world claims as its own?

The U.S.-based Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) was recently thrust into the debate following its decision to block the broadcast of Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center, a documentary that aims to shed light on the lives of Muslim moderates living in Western societies. PBS officials argued that the film, originally commissioned as part of an 11-part series entitled America at a Crossroads, was flawed by incomplete storytelling and an alarmist writing style. Jeff Bieber, executive producer of the Crossroads series, said, “We just felt there was incomplete context [that] could lead viewers to the wrong conclusions.”¹ The film’s producers have responded by saying the decision of the PBS advisory board was flawed by a number of conflicts of interest, including one member’s affiliation with the Nation of Islam.

Regardless of whether these claims are true, Islam vs. Islamists contains enough internal flaws to rightly earn Bieber’s censure. The film focuses on the lives of four Muslim 'moderates': Naser Khader, a Danish lawmaker; Mohamed Sifaoui, a French journalist; Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, an American physician; and Tariq Fatah, a Toronto-based TV host. All four are portrayed as valiant protagonists working against the influence of extremist imams and terrorists who are trying to hijack Islam for their own purposes. Jasser explains, “I wouldn’t be taking this time away from my family and my profession…unless I felt that I was trying to struggle for the soul of my faith.”

Because of the time constraints imposed by the documentary as a medium, filmmakers must do their best to construct narratives that serve as representative microcosms of much larger issues. Islam vs. Islamists, which runs for a mere 52 minutes, deliberately constructs a hero-villain dichotomy in each of its four sub-narratives. Each moderate’s story is paired with that of a Muslim extremist who is located in the same city and who is often working specifically against the moderate figure’s efforts.

This narrative construction is problematic because the stories of the moderates are often overshadowed by the inflammatory statements and actions of the extremists. Is anyone likely to remember the patriotic comments of Tariq Fatah after being confronted with Canadian Imam Aly Hindy, who rigorously defends the punishment of death by stoning for adulterers? The practice “is not controversial,” he said while laughing and holding up a Quran. “This is Islam.”

Because of the narrow focus on polarizing heroes and villains, viewers walk away from Islam vs. Islamists feeling that moderates like Jasser & co. are not true representatives of the faith. They are rather perceived as an embattled anomaly that—no matter how much viewers like their social outlooks or political stances—cannot be referenced as a trusted guide for what Islam actually teaches. Viewers are likely to reach this conclusion because, other than one moderate Sufi imam, any figure shown who has had religious training is an extremist.

Imam Yahya Hendi, Georgetown University’s Muslim chaplain and a self-proclaimed Muslim moderate, specifically objected to how Islam vs. Islamists portrayed members of the religious establishment. “The imams are in one camp, and the journalists, politicians, and professors are in the other. There are imams getting threatened every day as well,” Hendi points out. And since the film neglects to include these figures, viewers are left to assume that the moderates depicted are fighting for peace and democracy in spite of what they are being taught in the mosque, rather than because of it.

Furthermore, the film reveals a startling inability to engage in the more nuanced questions of personal faith and public life. For example, at no point does the film attempt to define the terms ‘Islamist’ or ‘Muslim moderate,’ but instead assumes their meanings are universally understood. In reality, the word 'Islamist' has different definitions based on whether the person using it is a scholar, a policymaker, or a member of the general public. Imam Hendi shows the difference between the scholar’s definition and the public’s definition when he says, “Five years ago the word Islamist was used to refer to a scholar studying Islam. [The Georgetown Islamic studies professor] John Esposito was an Islamist; now a terrorist is an Islamist.”

In the policymaking world, the word is most often used to specifically refer to a person or group that is actively working towards the constitutional implementation of Islamic law (shari'a) on an entire society.² Islam vs. Islamists seems to utilize this understanding of the word but never overtly defines it, which is problematic considering many Americans don’t know what shari'a is. Because of the secular nature of U.S. society, the concept of a publicly implemented religious law is completely foreign to most Americans. As a result, viewers continue to operate under the assumption that any Muslim who violently promotes his beliefs is an Islamist.

Stemming from Islam vs. Islamists’ failure to define terms is its failure to substantively address the question that naturally arises from understanding Islamist ideology: what is the appropriate way for Islam’s shari'a law system to interact with democratic political life? Rather than fostering a real debate about this difficulty, Islam vs. Islamists again portrays two starkly contrasting options. On one side is Slimane Abderrahmane, an al Qaeda-trained Danish Muslim who believes that participation in politics is anti-Islamic because “to make laws—only God does that. And there is only one god in Islam, and that is Allah.” On the other side is Tariq Fatah, who self-identifies as “the guy who opposes shari'a in Canada.”

Is there not a third option? Can a Muslim follow shari'a law in his personal life while accepting democratic ideals for the wider society? Must there be a total separation of mosque and state, or is there a way for Muslims to let their faith interact with their political involvement in a positive way? Such questions are left wholly untouched by Islam vs. Islamists.

The polarization promoted by Islam vs. Islamists is even more apparent when viewed in contrast to The Muslim Americans, the film PBS aired instead of Islam vs. Islamists in the Crossroads series. Where Islam vs. Islamists gives airtime to very few people who exist outside the hero/villain roles, The Muslim Americans takes care to interview a broader range of sources, including U.S. government officials, democracy-supporting imams, and college professors who specialize in Islamic studies. This wider range of perspectives in The Muslim Americans lends the film a level of credibility that Islam vs. Islamists does not have, and also helps viewers understand the wider context within which the featured Muslims operate.

For example, The Muslim Americans acknowledges the differing levels of extremism that exist in America and European Muslim communities. Scholars from the Pew Research Center support The Muslim Americans’ claim that American Muslims are far less radicalized than their European counterparts, most likely because of the economic well-being of the Muslim communities in their respective countries. While the income and education levels of Muslim Americans match the national mean, European Muslims are far more economically depressed.³ Despite the fact that Islam vs. Islamists’ narrative moves from Europe to North America and back again, it fails to include this important contextual information.

Pew has also found that only 8% of Muslim Americans think suicide bombings that target civilians are justifiable, while Muslims in France, Spain and Great Britain were twice as likely to say that they were.⁴ In fact, within the worldwide community of Islam, American Muslims are the least likely to support terrorism. “The notion of Islam being a monolithic religion that by default supports extremism is not substantiated by what we’ve found,” said Amaney Jamal, a Princeton University professor and Pew consultant.⁵ The real face of Islam is far more complex than what such a stereotype would suggest.

It should be noted that despite its larger pool of interview subjects, The Muslim Americans employs its own limiting narrative construction. Rather than pitting moderate Muslim professionals against extremist imams, The Muslim Americans treats the mainstream American Muslim as the heroic victim, while the fearful and ignorant American public is seen as the oppressive villain. Frank Gaffney, a producer for Islam vs. Islamists, pointed to this as his main objection to the film. “Basically everyone is an angry, victimized Muslim,” he said. “Does that convey to the American people a more accurate portrayal of Muslims? I suggest that is a wrong image.”

Both films have their own unique strengths and weaknesses. A positive feature of Islam vs. Islamists is that it takes the public’s nebulous fear of radical Islam and puts a face on it by interviewing extremist Muslims and letting them speak for themselves. The public should realize there are violent extremists who use Islam as a means to justify their actions—and that they exist even in the Western world. However, that realization should be accompanied by an understanding of the wide range of beliefs held by Muslims, particularly about the use of violence, and should empower viewers to move beyond stereotypes. The virtue of The Muslim Americans is that it is much more able to help viewers take this action.

Gaffney suggested the appropriate way for PBS to handle the controversy would have been to air both documentaries together—and in the end he is right. Both films do well at showing specific aspects of Western Muslims’ stories, though neither captures the complexity of their situation. However, neither film is a substitute for individuals seeking out relationships with real Muslims in their communities. Only when this happens will the American public be able to discover the ‘real face’ of Islam, and move past the stereotypes and limitations of films such as these.

Last updated 12 January 2009