Naif is unhappy about stories like this one, which called the winners “Islamists.” And well he should be: in Onward Muslim Soldiers I explain why the term is essentially useless: it posits a distinction between Muslims who pursue a political and violent agenda and their coreligionists that does not exist in fact. You will not find mosques or Muslims classifying themselves as “Islamist” or “non-Islamist.”
The people whom non-Muslim analysts tend to call “Islamists” are those who believe that Sharia should be the law of the land — every land — and are willing to do violence to bring that about. But these people are merely traditional Muslims, acting on the example of the prophet Muhammad and core teachings of the Qur’an and Hadith. They move about freely among Muslims and are found in every Muslim community. Most often, Western analysts use the term “Islamists” to suggest a vast majority of Muslims who do not accept “Islamist” premises or principles. Unfortunately, however, such people do not in fact generally exist. There are Muslims, often known as moderate Muslims, who are unaware of or indifferent to the premises of political Islam, and a much smaller number who are honestly trying to reject or reform those principles; but a genuinely moderate Islam — a Muslim system that accepts the principles of Western pluralism and is ready to teach Muslims to live in harmony with non-Muslims as equals, not as current or eventual superiors and masters — does not exist.
From Arab News, with thanks to Ali Dashti:
RIYADH, 14 February 2005 “” Interior Minister Prince Naif has rejected moves to classify Saudis into Islamists and non-Islamists. He was referring to media reports that Islamists had won Riyadh Municipal Council elections.
“I strongly object to the media for focusing on this issue. We don’t accept such classifications, because we are all Muslims and citizens. The elections were held in the right manner. It has been proved that they (the winners) followed the law and did not create any problem,” he told reporters….
The candidates also said that the winners unfairly claimed they had the backing of Islamic clerics.
“The winners used religion,” said Hezam Al-Otaibi, a loser. “Of course messages were going around on cell phones, violating the election rules,” he added.
UPDATE: Martin Kramer has brought my attention to his most interesting article about the history of the term “Islamist,” and resistance to it among those it was intended to classify.