After Last Night's Debate, I've Already Changed My Mind on the Phrase 'Islamic Terrorism'

Yesterday I wrote about a piece inspired by Maajid Nawaz who argued that we must talk up the Islamic nature of Islamic terrorism.

This got my attention because of who Nawaz is-he was once himself in the Jihad movement and escaped and is now a liberal Muslim who wants to defeat this terrible movement.

He is critical of liberals like the President who don't like to talk up the Islamic aspect. Nawaz argues that Islam really does have internal issues that it needs to reform.

"What most discussions of “Muslim extremism” miss, and what is obfuscated at every turn by commentators like Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, Karen Armstrong—and even Nicholas Kristof and Ben Affleck—is the power of specific religious ideas such as martyrdom, apostasy, blasphemy, prophecy, and honor. These ideas do not represent the totality of Islam, but neither are they foreign to it. Nor do they exist in precisely the same way in other faiths. There is a reason why no one is losing sleep over the threat posed by Jain and Quaker “extremists.” Specific doctrines matter."

"To call ISIS “un-Islamic,” as President Obama has repeatedly done, and as Prime Minister Cameron recently stopped doing, is to play a dangerous game with words. Calling out and combating the ideology of Islamism is the only way that non-Muslims can help those liberal Muslims who wish to reform their faith from within. And failing to do so means abandoning the most vulnerable in Muslim communities—women, gays, apostates, freethinkers, and intellectuals—people like Nobel Peace Prize nominee Raif Badawi, who is being lashed in Saudi Arabia for the “crime” of writing a blog."

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/11/maajid-nawaz-on-islamic-nature-of.html

I take him as an important honest broker, to be sure. But after seeing the GOP play gotcha with this last night, I remain unconvinced.

John Dickerson-who didn't have a great night despite what the Beltway argues

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/11/in-2016-primary-it-seems-only-hillary.html

belabored the issue-he clearly wanted to argue that you're 'soft on terrorism' if you refuse to say radical Islam. .

Of course, the GOP immediately piled on.

"Conservatives gleefully called on voters to wake up after the Democratic presidential candidates declined during Saturday night's debate to say the U.S. is at war with "radical Islam" in the wake of the Paris attacks."

"The term is a favorite among the Republican presidential candidates, who evoke "radical Islam" in broad strokes when talking about the Islamic State and jihadists committing violent acts of terrorism around the world."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/democratic-debate-radical-islam-reactions

I don't know, but I'm skeptical at least that when the GOP does it, they are doing anything but razzing Islam.

It seems like a pretty facile game of 'word gotcha' overall.

I can't trust a party who believes that there should be a religious test for President and that Muslims need not apply. I can't just presume they aren't anti Islam, Full stop.

Hey unlike GOPers, or Bernie apparently, I do believe you sometimes 'evolve' on issues. It''s not 'waffling'' it's just learning.