Magdi Khalil on "Islamophobia"

From The American Thinker:

The term "Islamophobia" is a tool of deception that serves to mislead the world, blackmail the West, terrorize whoever dares to criticize Islam, fuel the anger of Muslim youth, and minimize the danger of Islamic terrorism, in addition to being a threat to the freedoms of thought, creativity and criticism in the West, ultimately the term can serve the interests of the terrorists.

While Tariq Ramadan holds the first place among the promoters of the concept of "Islamophobia", Saad Eddin Ibrahim takes the lead in using the term "Islamist scarecrow". The term is meant for the ears of the West as well, and suggests that the autocratic governments play on the fear of the West that an Islamist rule will be the alternative if those regimes fall, so that by waving this "scarecrow" around, and alluding to the ominous repercussions of reform for Western interests, for non-Muslim minorities, and the Middle East as a whole, they have managed to scare off the West and stall the reform project. Though I agree with my dear friend Prof. Ibrahim that the autocratic regimes in the Middle East have skillfully used this scare tactic to alarm not only the West, but also the non-Muslim minorities in the East, the liberals and women, nonetheless the term itself is inappropriate if not misleading, and plays right into the hands of Islamists and their plans to establish a religious state.

The Islamists should not be compared to a scary looking but harmless scarecrow; they are by no means an empty threat, but rather a genuine menace that alarms the advocates of civil society, who realize that if Political Islam gets its chance to take control of the Middle East, the region will plunge into total darkness. The Islamists would not let go of their detrimental vision of a religious state, and there are two recent cases that support this view: the way Hamas renounced the terms of democracy and went back on its agreement, shattering the Palestinian experience; and the way the Muslim Brotherhood have affected life in Egypt, even though they have no part in the government. Considering that the Muslim Brotherhood's proposed reform project is for a religious state that is governed by scholars concerned with camel urine, where the law submits to shari'a and science to superstition, where national belonging is discarded in favor of religious belonging, and political posts turn into religious assignments, where political power bows down to religious power, and to the instatement of welayat al-faqih (guardianship of the Islamic jurists) that mirrors Iran -- considering that this is only a proposal, one has to wonder how much worse reality will be if they gain the power to implement their vision?

The Islamists are certainly no scarecrows; basically, they are a major obstruction standing in the way of real democracy, citizenship and civil state. They do not endorse the supremacy of the law and a civil constitution that separates state and religion. They do not sanction laws that protect and expand freedoms. They reject genuine equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, and they are engrossed with religious interpretations to the point of complete obsession. Hence, it is reasonable to say that any attempts to defend or bolster their image can only lead to the obliteration of whatever little is left of the civil state to the advantage of an extremely dark religious state.

Yes, the Middle East regimes are autocratic, corrupt and do use the Islamists' card in a dangerous game inside and outside their countries. Nevertheless, to stand by the Islamists is a reckless and extremely risky gamble, and much like "Samson choice", the whole region may not survive its outcome.