Greg Bouwer
IINZ
There is something deeply broken in our public discourse when an ideology that openly glorifies violence, repression, and antisemitism cannot be named without ritual hesitation. Radical Islamist ideology has inspired terror attacks across continents, justified the slaughter of Jews, Christians, Yazidis, and Muslims alike, and imposed brutal theocratic rule wherever it gains power. Yet in Western democracies – including New Zealand – many leaders, institutions, and commentators remain unwilling to call it out directly.
Not because the facts are unclear. But because fear has replaced moral clarity.
Let us be absolutely clear from the outset: criticising radical Islamist ideology is not an attack on Muslims. That distinction is neither novel nor controversial – unless one chooses to make it so.
We routinely and rightly criticise Christian fundamentalism, Jewish extremism, Hindu nationalism, white supremacism, neo-Nazism, and far-left revolutionary violence without tarring every adherent of those faiths or identities. Only when Islamism is involved does basic reasoning suddenly collapse.
Why?
Because the fear of being labelled “Islamophobic” now overrides commonsense.
The weaponisation of “Islamophobia”
The term Islamophobia was originally intended to describe prejudice, hatred, or discrimination against Muslims as people. That is a legitimate concern, and it should be opposed wherever it occurs.
But over time, the term has been stretched – often deliberately – to include:
- Criticism of political Islam
- Analysis of jihadist ideology
- Exposure of Islamist antisemitism
- Discussion of Islamist violence and incitement
In effect, an ideology has been shielded by conflating it with an identity.
This is not accidental. It is a rhetorical strategy designed to shut down scrutiny. When belief systems are treated as immutable ethnic traits, debate becomes taboo and accountability disappears.
The result is widespread self-censorship. Journalists reach for euphemisms. Politicians speak in evasions. Institutions adopt language so vague it borders on dishonest. ‘Extremism’ becomes detached from its ideological source. Terror is described as ‘senseless’ rather than doctrinal. Hatred is framed as ‘complex grievance’.
This is not nuance. It is cowardice.
Progressive moral asymmetry
A further obstacle lies in the moral framework dominant in much of the progressive left. The world is divided into ‘oppressors’ and ‘oppressed’, with power determined largely by identity, history, and perceived Western culpability.
Within this framework, Islamists are often misclassified as victims rather than agents – despite their totalitarian beliefs, explicit genocidal rhetoric, and record of repression. Once cast as ‘oppressed’, they become insulated from criticism. Their violence is contextualised, explained away, or minimised.
This logic collapses under the slightest scrutiny.
Islamist movements:
- Execute political opponents
- Subjugate women
- Persecute religious minorities
- Suppress free expression
- Promote eliminationist antisemitism
These are not the actions of liberation movements. They are the hallmarks of authoritarianism.
Granting ideological immunity on the basis of identity is not anti-racist. It is moral inversion.
The institutional fear factor
Universities, NGOs, media organisations, and public bodies increasingly operate under a climate of risk aversion. The fear of social media backlash, reputational damage, or professional consequences drives decision-making.
So we get language stripped of meaning:
- ‘Heightened tensions’ instead of Islamist incitement
- ‘Violence linked to the Middle East’ instead of antisemitic terror
- ‘Community harm’ instead of ideological hatred
This does not foster social cohesion. It fosters mistrust.
When institutions refuse to name what is plainly visible, the public does not become more enlightened – it becomes more cynical.
Who really pays the price?
The greatest victims of this silence are not Western commentators worried about their reputations. They are Muslims themselves.
Globally, the primary victims of radical Islamist ideology are:
- Muslims who reject extremism
- Reformers and dissidents
- Women and girls
- Religious minorities
- Secular Muslims
By refusing to name the ideology responsible, we abandon those communities to their oppressors. Worse, we imply that Muslims are incapable of internal critique – that they must be protected from ideas rather than empowered as moral agents.
That is not respect. It is condescension masquerading as tolerance.
Naming ideology is a moral obligation
Democracies survive on the ability to distinguish between people and ideas. People deserve protection. Ideologies deserve scrutiny.
Radical Islamist ideology – like Nazism, fascism, and other totalitarian belief systems – must be confronted precisely because it:
- Justifies violence
- Rejects pluralism
- Targets Jews explicitly and relentlessly
- Undermines democratic norms
Silence does not prevent bigotry. Rather, it enables extremism.
And when antisemitic violence erupts – as it has repeatedly in recent years – our leaders rush to condemn ‘hate’ in the abstract, while carefully avoiding the ideological engine driving it. Sympathy replaces principle. Words are offered without consequences.
That is not solidarity. It is performance.
The uncomfortable truth
We are not afraid to name radical Islamist ideology because the distinction is unclear. We are afraid because clarity now carries a social cost.
But societies that lose the courage to speak plainly about violent ideologies do not become more inclusive. They become more brittle, more divided, and more vulnerable to manipulation.
If we truly believe in pluralism, human rights, and minority protection – including the safety of Jewish communities – then we must recover the moral confidence to say what should already be obvious:
Calling out radical Islamist ideology does not tar all Muslims. Refusing to do so endangers everyone.
History does not judge kindly those who chose euphemism over truth – especially when the warning signs were impossible to miss.
This article was originally published by the Israel Institute of New Zealand.
