A growing danger among Western liberals is the failure to distinguish between the radical Islamist minority and the majority of Muslims. Feature the Canadian government’s new “Guide to Understanding and Combatting Islamophobia.”

The guide’s imprecise definition of “Islamophobia” blurs the line between genuine anti-Muslim discrimination and valid criticism of political Islamism. By failing to make this distinction, the guide shields extremist agendas from scrutiny and empowers those who seek to silence moderate Muslim voices.

The term “Islamophobia” did not come into use until the 1990s. Critics contend that Islamist groups, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies, played a significant role in promoting it. Organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation actively pushed this term in politics and the press, often using it to silence discussions and prevent criticism of Islamist ideology.

French author Pascal Bruckner and Algerian scholar Boualem Sansal argue that Islamists have used the term to shut down debates on issues like jihadism, Sharia law, and human rights abuses in Muslim-majority countries. Historian Bernard Lewis noted that instead of addressing real anti-Muslim discrimination, the term has often been used to suppress criticism of Islamism and its growing influence.

Rather than addressing concerns through open discussion, they use the term to brand their critics as bigots. This is particularly dangerous because it silences moderate Muslims, reformers, and secular voices who fear being attacked or ostracized.

Would, say, calling groups like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps “terrorist organizations” be considered Islamophobic? Would condemning violent attacks, such as suicide bombings or stabbings by extremists, be seen as anti-Muslim hate? If someone speaks out against the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in North America, would they be labeled an Islamophobe?

These are serious questions because labeling all criticism as Islamophobia shuts down discussions about security, human rights, and the role of Islamist groups in politics. The Canadian guide states that it is unjust to blame an entire religious group for the actions of extremists or individuals involved in violence or crime. Likewise, holding all Muslims accountable for those who distort Islam to justify violence or oppression is unfair.  

As a Muslim Arab-American, I could not agree more. Even so, the events of October 7 made it clear that Islamists have successfully spread their influence in the West. This was evident in the widespread protests supporting designated terrorist organizations like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Qassam Brigades. 

Islamist organizations are actively funding and backing these demonstrations, many of which have turned violent, as seen on college campuses, and at government and public spaces. 

At the same time, they strongly oppose any legal action against the protests’ leaders, who openly call for the destruction of Israel and advocate for the eradication of an entire religious group by chanting “From the river to the sea,” further enabling extremism. 

The guide, however, attempts to compare apples to oranges, twisting the facts to make any criticism of Islamism sound like anti-Muslim bigotry. By blurring the line between Islam as a religion and Islamism as a political ideology, the guide could end up silencing legitimate concerns about radicalization, extremist networks, and the growing influence of Islamist groups in the West.

The guide fails to mark the line between Islam, a religion with diverse interpretations, practiced peacefully by most Muslims, and Islamism, the political ideology that seeks to impose Islamic law (Sharia) and establish Islamic rule. 

Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Taliban, ISIS, and Al Qaeda promote this ideology, aiming to merge religion with politics and governance.

Recognizing the difference between these two terms is essential. It allows us to protect religious freedom while standing firmly against radical ideology, support moderate and reformist Muslims who challenge extremism, and prevent false accusations of bigotry when discussing political Islam. 

Canada’s attempt to define Islamophobia shows the danger faced by Western governments and institutions that give a platform to Islamist activists who falsely claim to represent all Muslims while sidelining those who seek genuine reform and freedom from political Islam. 

This dangerous miscalculation not only silences moderate voices but also strengthens the grip of Islamist ideology. Canada’s hamfisted attempt to grapple with “Islamophobia” is a reminder that if political Islamism is not confronted now, it will continue to erode Western freedoms, embolden extremists, and become even more difficult to dismantle in the future.