"At the Jihad Watch Café, we serve incoherent coffee..."

 
...it is “fundamentally wrong” to use the phrase “Islamist terrorism,” because it is actually “Islamic terrorism,” no steps removed from Islam as such.

So intones Robert Spencer, the éminence grise of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, at that bastion of same, Jihad Watch.  One of his customers (moi, who has purchased one of his books and found it, frankly, a rather lackluster cut-and-paste job) asks from on low:

How is the “fundamentally wrong” phrase “Islamist terrorism” any worse than the “radical Islam” of Jihad Watch contributor Raymond Ibrahim?

And the question becomes (as William F. Buckley used to say), why can't the Counter-Jihad get its rhetoric together?  If one were to do a survey of the last few years since “Islamist” and “Islamism” became fashionable in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (e.g., Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of many Counter-Jihad Mainstreamers who have lauded Robert Spencer's new book), one would find those dysphemisms sprinkled throughout like coconut flakes at a Starbuck's.

One would think, then, that in an essay titled -- Why We Don't Need Words Like 'Islamist' -- in which author Robert Spencer is critiquing Raymond Ibrahim's positively titled -- Why We Need Words Like 'Islamist' -- Spencer wouldn't commit any gaffes.  Unfortunately, I tripped over one glaring one, twice: his use with an utterly sincere straight face, of the dysphemism “political Islam” as though it were any better than “Islamism”.  As Robert Spencer's other self (the more robustly anti-Islam Mr. Hyde, as opposed to his “I am not 'anti-Islam' ” Dr. Jekyl) might say to himself (on a rare good day when he's not feeling the need to double-virtue-signal):

...it is “fundamentally wrong” to use the phrase “political Islam,” because actually all of Islam, from top to bottom, the whole kit and fucking kaboodle, is “political”.

He even has the gall to specify with an example, of what kind of Muslim would not be an adherent of this curious fantasy concept:

...many analysts use the term “Islamist” to mean an adherent of the tenets of political Islam. And certainly, as Raymond points out in his piece here, some term is needed for such people: for example, a follower of Mubarak in Egypt would likely be a Muslim but not an “Islamist”: i.e., not a proponent of Sharia rule.

Is that as clear as the mud on the banks of De Nile...?