For too long, the term Islamism has functioned as a lazy shorthand in Western discourse; one that often sanitizes the dehumanization and securitization of Muslim bodies. And when itâs used by those claiming spiritual insight, especially from within a global Faith like the BahĂĄâĂ Faith, it becomes more than just a rhetorical misstep. It becomes a betrayal.
This week, a prominent British BahĂĄâĂ comedian made such a misstep.
A Moment of Caution â Dismissed
When Omid Djalili posted a news clip, which gently reframed the BahĂĄâĂ concept of the Oneness of Mankind, I appreciated the gesture. In fact, I said so. The âtoe-stubbingâ analogy was clever, and there was something moving in seeing profound principles gently repackaged for a wider audience.
But I raised one concern: the reference to Islamism. It was, I suggested, overwrought, unnecessary, and ultimately unwise. I proposed an alternative: perhaps rephrasing the same concern as âsecurity anxieties around mass migrationâ or similar language that doesnât dog-whistle. This wasnât a condemnation. It was, as any BahĂĄâĂ should recognize, consultation. An invitation to reflection.
Instead, I was told: âLook up the word.â
The Burden of BahĂĄâĂs in Public
Itâs not about semantics. Itâs about responsibility. And especially so when one is invoking sacred teachings, teachings that thousands upon thousands have died for; on public platforms. The BahĂĄâĂ Faith is not a marketing device to win over a Western liberal audience by soft-launching its principles in the language of border panic and counter-terrorism.
To reduce Islamism to a âtechnical English-language distinctionâ is disingenuous. The term has never been neutral. In nearly all Western contexts, it has become a floating signifier for violence, extremism, and âdangerous Muslims.â It serves to other, to isolate, and to justify state and vigilante violence often against entirely innocent people (Afghanistan, Iraq & Palestine).
And when BahĂĄâĂs, of all people, repeat that language without self-awareness, without contrition, and without consultation, we should all be worried.
The Problem Isnât the Joke. Itâs the Response.
I understand the pressures of performance. Iâve done media. I know how easy it is to slip. What matters is what happens next. When another BahĂĄâĂ, someone you know, someone with many mutual connects, raises a concern gently and in good faith, the correct response isnât smugness. It isnât defensiveness. It certainly isnât âlearn English.â
That response is hurtful, racist, and deeply contrary to the values we both claim to serve. And thatâs what cut. Not the line in the show but the refusal to listen afterwards. The arrogance of elite BahĂĄâĂs who believe proximity to celebrity, applause, or power gives them carte blanche to reframe revelation in their own image.
This Is Why We Need to Talk
As Brown Pundits reshapes itself, Iâm re-examining my own priors, too. What voices we platform. What values we uphold. Who gets to speak for our communities and under what banner.
So I say this plainly: The oneness of mankind cannot be proclaimed by marginalizing Muslims. And BahĂĄâĂs, especially public ones, must hold themselves to the standard of humility, consultation, and truthfulness we profess to believe in. We cannot serve justice while echoing injustice. We cannot preach unity while casually reinscribing division. The world is watching. Letâs be worthy of what we claim.
