Islam does not distinguish between profane and profound. Thus, simple slogans like “Islamism” do nothing for those who accept states like contemporary Pakistan, which is by no means secular and by all means a state which recognizes religion in politics to some degree. Is that “islamist”?
Without any clear cut distinction between Islamist and Islam defined for our consideration, there’s no real reason to take the term “Isalmism” seriously. Other than, say, an artifact of whatever notions of political correctness are left with regards to Islam. Perhaps it is even evidence of the West’s inability or unwillingness to declare the exact secular equivalent of what most westerners would call a holy war…
If the General is suggesting that Muslims have no choice but to accept a secular polity even within Muslim lands like Afghanistan, then we are in fact in a state of war…and no, it’s not the Muslims who started it if such is the case…it’s by the very virtue of the West’s intolerance for non-secular regimes. So the war is because of an aspect of Muslim belief that we consider rather salient…
Second, why is democracy and absurdist notions of “freedom” immune from being labeled as a “dominatrix” ideology…after all, it was the cited reason why the Americans invaded Iraq…hmmm…democracy being spread by the sword is all fine and dandy?
Yes, but if you buy the cant on political Islam, or rather Islam in politics in general, then you have no reason to expect any understanding in return…no?