About Article

This article demonstrates how the application of a broad and decontextualized distinction between “mod erate” and “extremist” Muslims can undermine our assessment of an Islamic identity, security, and rad icalization. It compares how this distinction has been used by the British colonial administrators (in Raffles, Crawfurd, Marsden, and Swettenham) in nineteenth-century Malaya and by Malaysia’s Prime Ministers (Mahathir, Badawi, and Najib) in the late-twentieth and early-twenty-first centuries. This com parison demonstrates that both groups, despite their very different backgrounds (Western non-Muslim and Muslim non-Western), introduced a similar distinction between “moderate” and “extremist” driven more by socio-political objectives than by religious ones. Furthermore, the article stresses the importance of considering the socio-political and contextual dimensions of Islamic identity before attempting to explain the process of radicalization and its implications for security. Such an approach discourages ref erence to broad categories such as “moderate,”“extremist,”“Islamism,” or “Salafism,” and allows for dis cussion of their contextual and socio-political connotations.