Jump to content

Talk:Islamism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

oldest topics

I don't know nearly enough about contemporary Islam to mess with this, and the web is a dangerous place to start. I will offer below the reference to the Encyclopedia of the Orient, which was very useful for culture terms when I taught Islamic Art & Architecture last year. The term is certainly in use among Muslims of my acquaintance in America and in Jordan, though all those people are western-educated and definitely opposed to the politics they identify as Islamist, so it's not NPOV testimony. (one problem with the term - it was a common 19th century synonym meaning merely "Muslim" by analogy to "Protestantism," while the current usage is more by analogy to "Liberalism" or "Marxism.") --MichaelTinkler

http://lexicorient.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct-frame.pl?http://i-cias.com/e.o/islamism.htm

Agreed, as it stands, this article claims there is only one kind of political Islam, and that's radical fundamentalist militant Islam. But in fact all of islam has a political character, by definition. And there is a big difference between a 'fundamentalist' who believes in something, a 'radical' who seeks deep change in core institutions, and a 'militant' who picks up a gun... to defend his way of life. And all of those are quite different from a terrorist who goes to attack someone else's way of life (whether he thinks he's defending his own or not, which he may be).

So, this article is biased slanted crap, and the clock is ticking starting now. Anyone who wants to understand the actual political history of Islam in ten minutes is well advised to read haram, hima, isnah, early Muslim philosophy, ulema, tarika and Islamization of knowledge. Then come back here and say that all fundamentalists are radical, that all radicals are militants, or that all militants are terrorists.

A good source is G. E. Jansen's "Militant Islam", Pan Books, 1979, a British work that basically describes militant Islam as the traditional defender of Islamic values against the values-free colonizing West, and the most likely hope to democratize Muslim nations. And yes he wrote after the Iranian revolution, about its early successes and failures.

There is indeed a 'radical Islamist' but that term must rightly include such as Al-Faruqi adn his Islamization of knowledge. It's like saying Pope John Paul II is a 'radical Catholic', which he most certainly is - as much so as the opposing radicals (liberation theologians, etc.) he purged from the Church. Radical is about thought, militant is about action, and 'terrorist' is about a specific type of action somewhere other than 'home'.

There were a lot of recent additions to this article which were incorrect, out of place, as well as being violations of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This article is not the correct place to discuss at length Noam Chomsky's conspiracy theories about how Westeners lie about Arabs. Further, there were some totally false claims made, such as "Western historians believe ..X" as a way to discredit this article. The implication was that their claims were biased, and that Arabs have a different point of view. But this is wrong. Arab historians themselves say the same thing. Further, an odd claim was made about the nation of Iraq, claiming that it proved the so-called "western" ideas were wrong, since it has created a stable Muslim secular state. How could anyone even remotely knowledgeable about Iraq could write such a thing? The facts are quite the opposite: Iraq is well-known to both Arab and Western scholars as an extremely unstable state, and that there is a large Muslim Islamist sub-culture that wants to actively overthrow Hussein's secular regime. RK

Many Arab political leaders have gone public with their fears of this scenario, and have said that this is one of the reasons that they are against the possible new US war against Iraq. Arabs believe that such a war is likely to release pent-up Islamism, which could have a ripple effect through Iraq, and perhaps Egypt and Jordan. I find it odd to ignore these crucial facts, and misleading to claim that these Arab views are really "western views". That's anti-Western propaganda, and does not belong here. RK

Still no mention of roles of ulema and tarika. You can't talk about such modern groups as the Muslim Brothers without mentioning their historical precedents. The present article is hopelessly mired in the current generation of analysts, who believe that history began in 1979, and that this hasn't been going on for over a millenium.

That is simply not true. In fact, you are being rude and insulting. Perhaps you think that insulting the views of moderate Arab and Western historians and professors of religion will gain you points amongst your peers, but it does not impress us.
You clearly know nothing about the topic. Thus, no point debating you. Read the articles on tarika and ulema and then say with a straight face that secret societies resisting Christian colonization are not part of Islam for over 1000 years. Clearly, they are, and that's just an historical fact, not an opinion. The article does not reflect this reality at all.
I am sorry, but you clearly have misunderstood me. I am not disagreeing with what you write in the above paragraph. If this is what you had been trying to refer to in your previous statements, you didn't make that clear. I don't have any problem with you adding information to this article on this fascinating topic. Just please don't attack me as someone who knows nothing about the topic; I do. The problem is that you initially were very vague in what you were writing about, and you kept mistakenly thinking that I was trying to refute specific points you had in mind. But that is not; in fact up until this moment I had no idea what specifically you wanted this article to mention. So I am in agreement with you on this issue. RK

Even the term "Islamism" is just stupid, because it implies there is some way to separate Islam from its 'ism'. Historically, there's no basis for that at all. It is wishful thinking. Right up through the 1980s, the term "Militant Islam" was applied, and that's still the correct term to apply to it today.

I find your comments polemical, ignorant, and uninformed. For example, you are using a crude form of wordplay to "prove" that the word Islamism has no meaning. Sorry, but no dice. Even in the Arab world the terms Islamism and Islamist are well-accepted. You can't expect the rest of the world to rewrite their dictionary to match your desires. RK
Of course the terms are 'well-accepted', as they propagate the idea that Islam can become non-political like some breeds of Christianity (although that too was wholly political in its early days). The term is legitimate if and only if one accepts that the division of politics and religion can be made. And, the majority of Islam, does not accept such divisions. The article just doesn't say that, and it must. It is you and your fellow academic dreamers who are rewriting the dictionary to match your desires - and fool Bush perhaps.
Huh? What are you talking about? On this point I totally agree with you; this point should be in the article. Whoever said otherwise? I don't understand why you are criticising something I never said. Don't get me wrong, I am glad we agree on this point! I just don't get why you thought I believed differently on this topic. RK

I am reverting the recent vandalism to this article. I understand that some people here on Wikipedia are extremely anti-Western and pro-Arab, but that does not give anyone the right to insert bald-faced lies into any entry, for any reason. For example, the claims I deleted about Iraq are recognized as fiction by both Arab and Western scholars. I want to be very clear about this: The view that Stevert has added is not pro-Arab, nor does it add information. Rather, he is saying things that are indisputable false, and in a way that is extremely anti-Arab. Stevert keeps lying, by falsely claiming that only "Western" scholars have certain views about the origin of Islam. As Arab historians themselves have written, that is false. I find Stevert's attacks against moderate Arab scholars, as well as all Western scholars, grossly offensive. RK

Further, he keeps filling this entry will straw-man arguments; he takes arguments that practically no believes, dishonestly claims that they are mainstream Western views, and then attacks these views which aren't really held by reasonable people to begin with. Finally, this is supposed to be an article about the Islamist movement, aka Islamism. Sadly, this article keeps getting filled with the personal theories of an extreme anti-Western linguist (who does not research in this area at all!) RK

Guys, this page is 'not supposed to be about Noam Chomsky's pet theories. Stop filling this article with this views of this one man, who is (by the way) widely considered an extremist. He also is a linguist and a specialist in grammar and the development of langauges. He is not an middle-east expert. (He just talks about the subject a lot, like many of us. That does not make him an expert, no matter how many articles he writes in defense of Islamic radicalism, and how many articles he writes attacking the USA.) The argument from authoritity is never valid to begin with, but it is even more ridiculous when it is used from someone who is not an authority in the field at all! RK

The point is "RK" this article is only here as a vulgar term, ( ethnically- derisive - in fact) Im not going to accuse you of watching too much Fox News Network, but I will say your calling Chomsky's perspective on this as "lies" and "vandalism" strikes me as odd. Perhaps evidence of your ethnocentrism, though I wouldnt actually think such a thing... (SV)

Islamism, as many will point out, is nothing so much as a variant on varous other similar vulgar expressions: "radical Islam", similar to "Arab nationalism" similar to "arab extremism". Does anyone ever say "radical Judiasm?" Ive seen it, why isnt there a name for it? the point is its a biased euphemism, and although, Im sure you RK know the ins and outs of the euphemism, you forget the bias part, and that the bias within the euphemism bears revealing in an en-circle-o-pedic article. (SV)

Stop writing these bizarre untruths. There is such a name for radical forms of Judaism, and in fact there are Wikipedia entries on it. Check out the Wikipedia entries on Gush Emunim, the fundamentlist Jewish settlers group, and on Ultra-Orthodox Judaism. Further, there are also names for similar radical forms of Hinduism and Christianity, and these also have begun to be discussed on Wikipedia. Your hysterical denial of the truth indicates that you don't want to discuss any of these subjects; you merely want to write apologetics for the Islamist movement. RK

Chomsky, a Jewish American like yourself, RK, gets credit worldwide ( outside of the US ) for being one of the few original and clear thinkers, in the world, let alone the Jewish-American community. To paraphrase something he said about Adam Smith, "You're supposed to worship Chomsky, though your not supposed to actually read him." (SV)

This is an egregiously bad example of the "Argument from authority". Chomsky is not an expert in this field. He is a linguist and researcher on the origins of grammar and syntax in humans. Further, this article is not about him, and I will not allow you to vandalize this article with your Chomsky worship. RK

If you do care to actually read the work of one of the worlds clearest thinkers, youll find a damning array of thoughful, considerate descriptions of current world affairs, and done in a context which rings of truth (see Jesus ), not to mention relevance, meaning, and substance. The only thing I regret in quoting Chomsky for this article is overlooking Edward Said, and Howard Zinn.-Stevert

Interesting that you define truth as Jesus. Is this an attack on me because I am not a Christian? Go away, troll. We shall not let you vandalize this article. RK
Who is "we" in this context? ;-)
More seriously, I can understand a desire for a different name - on a personal level I knew about "radical Islam" aka "fundamentalist Islam", but I'd not come across "Islamism" before. So, naturally, I worshipped the great God Google and it quoth:
  • Islamism => 24,800
  • Islamist => 122,000
  • radical Islam => 24,700
  • radical Muslim => 11,300
  • fundamentalist Islam => 7,980
  • fundamentalist Muslim => 6,080
  • militant Islam => 29,300
  • militant Muslim => 6,430
Seems like Islamist/Islamism is the most common then, so it seems reasonable to use that as a title. The content of this article is a seperate question, of course... Martin

--- RK, your (perhaps) too malciously keen to call me a "troll", but ill defer to Hanlon's Law on that subject.

Peace breaks out: Alright RK, what do you want for this article to include some NPOV? Huh? Maybe some reference to anti-Semitism on the Islam page? What do you want, RK out of this article? What is your invested interest in this article? Your not qualified to write it, you admit that yourself in your Hanlonesque terms, that, what do you want? Ill give you an example of how you overlook bias:

Impartial readers can see for themselves what a hysterical liar that Stevertigo is. You see, I never said any such things. He forges quotes, and then replies to these forged quotes. Worse, he expects other people not to notice. Well, guess what? We do notice. Continued violation of WIkipedia protocol may lead to Stevertigo being banned.

The article stated "Many political analysts have characterized Islamism as a symptom of a demographic timebomb in the Middle East in which the population is growing rapidly, but without a correspondingly large growth in the economy."

Is this NPOV? It reminds me of the notion of attempting to sweep under the rug the IPF famine debate as being based on insinuations of over-reproduction.

Clearly theres far more to it. 50 years of denegration of human standards, a theft of culture, political power, etc.... say what you like in your attempt to gather Ameri-cantric support, the bias is revealed in the ill weight given to stoic "facts".

I don't understand. What precisely do you hold is not NPOV about this? You really are not being clear. And again, this is also a mainstream view held by Arab historians and sociologists. Why do keep lying about Arab scholars, and claiming that they are all "American-centric"? That is really bizarre. RK

As far as demographic timebombs, from what I understand of agriculture, even the USA, the "greatest, most prosperous country in the world" is a demographic timebomb as well. ( Crop yields per acre diminishing / food consumption per capita rising ) In other words, were not in disagreement : the whole world is a demographic timebomb and nobody is to be blamed (including violent, radical islamists or nationalists, and people like yourself ) for acting out in ways that are human, ( rage, defensiveness..) This works at all levels, including the level of discourse like this one, so your defensiveness, in how islamism is portrayed is understandable, though it must be pointed out, without prejudice, that your interests are not Islamic, therefore youre defensiveness takes offensive form.

And btw... My reference to Jesus; was not to your degree of belief, but to the central element of the Christ mythos; standing up to the wicked and the invested within his own community, and speaking the truth, regardless of where it would lead him: Heroism for sake of principle, in other words. The human culture would be stuck back in the middle ages if it wasnt for such spiritual leaps. There are more leaps to come, get use to it, young man. -Stevert

"This is an egregiously stupid example of the "Argument from authority". Chomsky is not an expert in this field. He is a linguist and researcher on the origins of grammar and syntax in humans. Further, this article is not about him, and I will not allow you to vandalize this article with your Chomsky worship."

p.s.: hehe I see. So... According to you, one cannot be an authority without a pedigree... lord, what a puppet you are. You also reveal your utter ignorace of linguistics, and the professor's revolutionary work on the subject; Words arentjust "grammar and syntax" - as you so ebulliently point out - that's was his point. Looks like you might got some schoolin' t'do. -sv

Uh, SV? You misspelled "diploma". Dogs have pedigrees. Academics have diplomas, and peer-reviewed research. Chomsky's views, outside of his professional field, are not well-accepted by anyone except radicals, anarchists, Marxists, and anti-Semites. Does that prove he is wrong? No. But it doesn't prove he is right, either. Does that prove he is an anti-Semite? No, but it sure doesn't help him look good, either. RK
You can quote all the linguistics, grammar and Scandanavian art professors you like. But none of them are authorities in the field. Also, for the purpose of NPOV we need to focus on mainstream scholars, and not use only the most radical anti-Western ones. Can the views of non-mainstream voices find a place here in Wikipedia? While this may surprise you, I say "Yes", and I would happilly agree with you that this entry, and others, might benefit from this. But the views in this article should start with a synopsis of mainstream views. If there exists a respected minority view of real scholars, and not just anti-Western cranks, then such alternative discussions of this topic should well be presented. But the material you wanted to add had actual errors in it; the most egrgious of which was a serious of straw-man arguments, in which Chomsky is attacking a view that no serious scholar holds! Further, the claims made about Iraq were silly, and didn't describe the real nation of Iraq that one finds in the real world. They were just made up claims. RK

But, truth be known, I'd rather quote you, RK...

"Also, for the purpose of NPOV we need to focus on mainstream scholars,"
"If there exists a respected minority view of real scholars, and not just anti-Western cranks, then such alternative discussions of this topic should well be presented."
"Chomsky is attacking a view that no serious scholar holds!"

Wow. I thought he took upon himself to point out where the rubber meets the road. And how mainstream scholars, well fed and pampered by the pentagon, are reluctant if not timid to say things of any critical nature, about how the west was won. You still lack schooling, but then as Mark Twain said once :"I never let my schooling interfere with my education." But Twain was a crackpot too, right? Let me quote someone who is universally accepted by most, as being 'not a "crackpot"' : Yeshua, M'Sheekha: "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

No, you miss the point. As far as the specific examples go, Chomsky is apparently lying. He is attacking views that no mainstream scholars hold. This is called "straw-man" tactics. Stevertigo, you just can't mak up quotes, and then attack people for things they never said. That is called vandalism, and it is not allowed on Wikipedia entries. -RK, (cutting in)

"Further, the claims made about Iraq were silly, and didn't describe the real nation of Iraq that one finds in the real world. They were just made up claims.

"Ill let this one go, as a freebie. Im not your schoolteacher. But the fun never stops. With you, does it..with respect for your future ability to discern horseshit, Stevert"

Um, this only proves that Stevertigo cannot back up his claims (no surprise) that he descends to harassment as well as forgery. Case closed. RK

Un, yes, Rk... please refrain from editing my comments... Just put your trite, little insignificant attempts at retorting what whatever is written - down at the bottom like all good, respectful ( and therefore respectable ) folk do. That way i dont have to go in and sort out your peckles from my dreckles, when you pollute the page like you tend to. Thanks a bunch. --Stevert

An RK classic, revisited: NOW WITH LINKS!

"Uh, SV? You misspelled "diploma". Dogs have pedigrees. Academics have diplomas, and peer-reviewed research. Chomsky's views, outside of his professional field, are not well-accepted by anyone except radicals, anarchists, Marxists, and anti-Semites."
Another classic by RK: "I agree with the Seer of Lublin, who wisely observed, "I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous" - this explains alot doesnt it? -Stevert

I have added a redirect from Muslim fundamentalism but I am noit sure if this is fair. Would "Muslim fundamentalism" perhaps refer to literal belief in the Qur'an and "Islamism" refer to political and acivist views?

Perhaps a Muslim wikipedian should decide and ammend if required. -- Chris Q 13:23 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

Islamism is a sub-set of Muslim fundamentalism. The Islamist movement is a militant social and political form of fundamentalist Muslim belief. However, there historically have been plenty of Muslim fundamentalists that were non-violent. There still are. I would keep these articles separate, and link them together as necessary. RK
Have done - though Muslim fundamentalism is really only a stup at present.
Many historians, both Arab and Western, hold that one of the roots of Islamism are the consequence of an inability of governments to rule Arab countries, under secular rule, also known as Arab nationalism, or Pan-Arabism. Of course, many other factors are involved as well. There are a few secular Muslim nations (e.g. Turkey, Egypt, and Iraq) who have managed to maintain stable secular governments, despite a vocal Islamic population. The case of Iraq, in particular, is of interest because there is a strong Islamist sub-culture intent on overthrowing Saddam Hussein's secular government, and replacing it with a state ruled by Islamic law.

What does the first sentence even mean? Why are arab nationalism and pan-arabism particularly associated with the "inability of governments to rule"? Which historians? What is a secular Muslim nation (do we mean secular Muslim government)? In what way is Turkey's government (about four coups in forty years) stable? In a paragraph on the roots of Islamism, do the last two paragraphs imply that the lack of Islamist governments cause Islamism!? DanKeshet 16:36 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

The core supporters of these groups tend to be people in the middle classes who have become frustrated with the corruption, inefficiency, and Western subserviency of the governments currently in power in the Middle East. Many political analysts have characterized Islamism as a symptom of a demographic timebomb in the Middle East in which the

population is growing rapidly, but without a correspondingly large growth in the economy.

I don't doubt that these theories exist, but they need citations, especially if we're going to use specific terminology ("demographic timebomb"). DanKeshet 22:52 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

I think that the first half of this paragraph should be restored; the second half (about demography) should be deleted. RK
OK, but I think it would be good to find example citations for this theory. (Hell, I can find citations from Chomsky.) DanKeshet
However, the strength of Islamism should not be overestimated.

This is a prescriptive sentence, and meaningless in an encyclopedia article, where we don't assume the reader has "estimated" the strength of Islamism at all.

What it probably should read is something "Islamism is not as common as some people believe; i.e. not all Muslims have become Islamists. Not even most Muslims have become Islamists. Islamism is practiced by a sizeable and growing minority of the Islamic world." RK
I'd be more comfortable using phrases like "sizeable minority" if there was some polling information we could use. If that's not available, don't Islamist political parties exist? How many votes do they normally get? Martin
been unable to offer improved government over the regimes that they have replaced

This is an opinion, and doesn't belong here.

Due to the predominance of the Islamist movement, Islam in the last 30 years has become increasingly intolerant of any disagreement or criticism. A recent feature of worldwide Islam is the tendency to issue public death threats against Muslims who disagree with the religion, ask to modernize the Qur'an, or write a book about leaving Islam. The death threats are not the province of a small number of fanatic clerics; in most of the cases cited below there have been public demonstrations by thousands of people in many nations, even in Arabs in Western nations such as England, burning the "heretics" in effigy and calling for their death. Moderates in the Arab community are not empowered to overturn the fatwas (religious edicts) calling for such death sentences. For examples of some of these death sentences, see Fatwa.

It is meaningless to say "Islam" has become "increasingly intolerant"; in the next sentence, we make it a little more clear what we mean, though not much. We talk about "moderates" in the Arab community without even giving an axis we can measure moderation against. We talk about "cases cited below", but it's not at all clear to me what these cases are. DanKeshet 22:52 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

The cases cited were moved to the article on Fatwa. I strongly believe that this paragraph should be improved to take into account all of your concerns, and then brought back into the main article. This is an especially important point, because it explains why there has been so little resistance to the Islamist movement. (Few people wish to become pariahs in their own community, much less risk getting killed.) RK
I figured something like that had happened. I hope that the people who were working on this article can clean it up into something without obvious oddities (like citing things that aren't on the page) so that the rest of us can reevalutate it. DanKeshet
In the Islamic World itself, it is the only one of these modern trends to achieve prominence as a major political movement.

I took this bit out, since I think it's misdirection. The idea that Islam should be brought into the political sphere -is- Islamist, and so by definition it's going to be the only such trend to do so. Graft

Please note that their now appears to be an edit war going on. Some anonymous person is censoring this article, and making up total falsehoods. The word "Islamism", as all historians and scholars of Islam know, is a neutral term; it is even used by a huge number of Muslims themselves; they also use the term "Islamist movement". In fact, millions of Muslims across the world are quite unhappy with the Islamist movement, as they feel it distorts Islam. These terms have been used by many years, and they are used by European, Muslim and American scholars of religion and history. However, this anonymous person is censoring material in this article, and making up total falsehoods. They dishonestly claim that this term didn't exist before the "War on Terrorism", and that it was invented by the Israelis and the Americans to attack Islam. I am not sure who he is (although I have my suspicions); he is already making ad homenim attacks on me. This person has already tried to cemsor this article a few days ago, and he was prevented. Sadly, he is back, and it is clear he is not above making stuff up to push his pro-pseudo-Muslim, and his anti-American and anti-Jewish agenda. We need to be very careful with this person, and watch their edits very carefully. RK 00:04, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Let me quote from my book, "State and Revolution in the Middle East and Pakistan", edited by Fred Halliday and Hamza Alavi, original copyright 1988:

The term 'Islamism', which apparently originated in both Arabic and French in North Africa, and has begun to be used in English, is used in place of the inaccurate and resented 'fundamentalism' and the overly vague 'Islamic Revival' and the like. ALthough some dislike 'Islamism', it has the great practical value of being the term most acceptable to Muslims. 'Islamism' refers to twentieth-century movements for political Islam, usually aiming overtly or covertly at an Islamic state that would enforce at least some Islamic laws and customs, including those related to dress, sex.. etc.

I hope this will at least settle the issue of "Islamism" being used before the current War on Terrorism, as well as its use by scholars of the field. Now if we can all get back to work instead of engaging in foolishness? Graft 00:18, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that many fundamentalist Muslims are quite peaceful; Sufi Islam is technically a fundamentalist movement (i.e. see the Wiki definition; they read their religious texts non-historically, as literally the word of God, etc.) yet Sufi Islam (aka Sufism) is well known as the most tolerant and peaceful denomination of the religion. The term Islamism should be preferred, as it refers to a particular modern political-religious movement, and not to all religious Muslims. RK 00:28, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think the term 'fundamentalist' applies at all well to Islamist movements, many of which have doctrines that are radical departures from previous Islamic thought (like Mawdudi's idea of himself as "enlightened leader", who alone was capable of seeing where the movement, and by extension the world, should go). When this edit war is over, I'd like to remove it from the introduction. Graft 00:32, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It is certainly true that the Islamist movement is a radical departure from previous Islamic thought, yet that doesn't make them non-fundamentalist. The term fundamentalist basically has two meanings in comparative religion; Islamism fits both of them. As per our Wikipedia article, (a) fundamentalism refers to the anti-modernist movements of various religions. In many ways religious fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture, even where the culture may be nominally influenced by the adherents' religion. (b) Fundamentalism also refers to a way of approaching one's religious scripture; i.e. in fundamentalism one holds that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate. So I would say that it is valid to note that Islamist movements are fundamentalist. This is, however (as you note), not the same thing as saying that they are traditional. Fundamentalists (of all faiths) like to portray their beliefs as "the way our religion has always been", even when in fact they have actually made radical innovations and changes. RK 20:13, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
More to the point, "Islamic fundamentalist" is often assigned a specific meaning, e.g., "traditionalist", those who abide carefully by long-standing norms and conventional interpretations, and especially attention to the ulema, which is not necessarily a feature of Islamist groups. For example, Mawdudi decidedly does NOT follow this line of thinking, also the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. On the other hand, the Wahhabists -do-, e.g. in Saudi Arabia. conferring tremendous authority on the clerics. Similarly the Deobandis. Whether we want to group them with the movements they inspired (al Qaeda and the Taliban respectively) is a matter of debate. However, there's no good call to use "fundamentalist" so loosely to label Islamists. Graft 13:52, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Please add de:Islamismus, tnx. --Nerd

Not stagnation again !

Once again, I fear that immobilism or stagnation will fall upon another wikipedia article. Protecting pages is perhaps good to cool down things, but imho contrary to a wiki process which should be dynamic. What is likely to occur is that the initial authors of the article will be quite happy at seeing it protected for undefinite time, since it suit them well, and such prevent it to evolute in a natural way as it should, over the various opinions and perceptions of other people.

I think it deep wrong. And I am so weak toward this, that I can't help feeling myself involved. This article is a very important one; and still, I see that no one think it important enough, or no one has the nerve to risk his skin in.

I know little about islamism, it perhaps is a good opportunity for me to understand it better and to learn essential things. See me as your goal, the perfect reader willing to improve his understanding of the situation.

I will take it in little pieces

Islam is inherently political

There is no separation of church and state responsibilities in any branch of Islam. civic responsibilities are an inherent part of the religion. Essential elements such as the definition of umma, ijma, zakat, khalifa and Islamic economics are basic to Islam as a political movement.

It is a basic principle of Islam that the problems faced by Muslim societies can be solved only by adhering to these and other tenets of Islam, with varying degrees of adaptation to custom and usage (called al-urf) in the societies it is adapted to. This process of ijtihad is also a core element of Islam. The various movements called Islamist tend to be those that have quite poorly accomodated to other societies, and cling to a fiqh that originated in late medieval times. See list of Islamic terms in Arabic for an overview of other important principles.

It is also not possible, as another tenet within Islam, to stand idly by as fellow Muslims are oppressed, attacked or colonized. Accordingly, any actual practice of Islam as a faith requires political activity - Islam itself is a political philosophy and requires among other things an active opposition to colonialism.

Accordingly, adding "ism" to the term Islam adds nothing useful to Muslims, and to non-Muslims, seems to imply that a "tame" or "colonizable" Islam can exist which does not involve political activity. A Muslim recognizes a process of making something more Islamic, and may accept the term Islamist to describe this motivation, but this can mean almost anything.

The Islamic State

When the term Islamist is used by Muslims, it refers almost exclusively to their own specific and positive program to establish an Islamic state. There are many more movements to establish such states than are recognized as Islamist by the West, thus the use is not very uniform. The association of one term to lump terrorism in with these autonomy, secession, self-sufficiency or independence movements would seem to be designed to discredit them. In the same way, Iraqis attacking U.S. occupation troops after the 2003 invasion of Iraq were and are very often described as "terrorists", despite the fact that they are natives resisting an invasion not authorized by the United Nations.

What is actually meant by Muslims who refer to themselves as Islamist is the establishment of Islamic Law with formal status. Ziauddin Sardar wrote in 1994 that "In recent times, a number of Muslim countries declared themselves to be Islamic states and ostensibly established the shariah. But what is actually put into practice is a small number of classical juristic rulings concerning punishments, status of women and other spectacular aspects of classical jurisprudence. Thus, great show is made of 'Islamic punishments' or huddud laws, and floggings and amputations are advertised. These are in fact 'outer limit' laws to be carried out only under extreme conditions and after certain basic requirements of social justice, distribution of wealth, responsibilites of the state towards its citizens, mercy and compassion are fulfilled. What we thus get is an austere state operating on the basis of obscurantist and extremist law, behaving totally contrary to the teachings of the Qur'an and spirit of Islam, yet justifying its oppressions in the name of Islam! The self-declared Islamic states are thus nothing more than cynical instruments to justify the rule of a particular class, family, or the military."

As an example, he notes that "traditional Muslim thought has been very unkind and oppressive to women. While religious scholars constantly recite the list of women's rights in Islam, they have been systematically undermining these very rights for centuries... For example, the Qur'anic advice about modesty in behaviour.. has been interpreted exclusively in terms of the behaviour of women. 'Modest' and 'decent' behaviour for women in public has been interpreted as a rigid dress code despite the...deliberate vagueness which [is] meant to allow all the time-bound changes that are necessary for social and moral growth of a society. In a total perversion of the Qur'anic advice, dressing modestly has thus been interpreted to mean dressing like a nun, covered from head to foot, showing only a woman's face (in some circles only the eyes), wriests and feet. An injunction meant to liberate from the oppressions of 'beauty' and 'fashion' ends as an instrument of oppression."

The grounds for more liberal interpretation of Islam are not in dispute. As of its origins, Islam granted women the right to own property, choose their own partners, divorce, to abortion when necessary, education and sexual satisfaction in marriage. For these very reasons, Christians denounced Islam as sensuous, licentious and perverted through the 19th century and associated it with sexual looseness.

In the 1917 during the Russian Revolution, when hold on the Muslim hinterlands from Moscow was drastically reduced, some local movements declared constitutions based on Islamic Law. A common pronouncement in them was that women were equal to men and would have the same democratic rights. These were crushed by the Soviet Union which subordinated Muslim countries into itself. What Islamic politics that existed, was local and quite suppressed.

Islam is sometimes militant

Today Islamic political movements are usually at least somewhat more conservative than their secular counterparts in the Islamic World.

Furthermore, some movements within Islam hold that a much more interventionist militant Islam is required to eject and prevent corrupt influences on children, women, and the young in particular. The term radical Islamist has come into use in propaganda to deliberately confuse the difference between radical and fundamentalist views, and militant actions.

Radical, as an adjective, implies a return to fundamentals. So does the term fundamentalist. Neither implies militant stances or violent actions. The Mennonite sect in Christianity, for instance, is both radical and fundamentalist, but is neither militant nor violent.

It is always problematic to assign any one ideology to a religion, whether in advocating or opposing it. In part what makes a religion durable is its ability to bend with the political times. In the United States in the 1960s for instance there was deep convergence between liberal white Christian churches, more conservative black churches, and civil rights movement activism - all saw racism as a common enemy. By the 1980s however more conservative religious forces had rallied (or been rallied by the Moral Majority, Christian Voice], and the Republican Party under Ronald Reagan) and had chosen abortion as their common opponent. However, on other issues, like the death penalty, these proponents were often strongly split, with Roman Catholics opposed, and most Protestant abortion opponents favouring state killing of "guilty" adults, as opposed to "innocent" unborn children.

Such shifts are just as prominent in the history of Islamic militancy. Examining militancy alone says little or nothing about the character of Islamic principles carried into political life.

question to Graft and RK : what do you think is wrong about these paragraphs ? Is it biaised ? Is it false ? Is it irrelevant ? Is it unattributed ? Please, provide detailed opinion. Anthère

These paragraphs are off-topic POV essays that are meant to excuse violent forms of Islam (Islamism), and to make Islam look better by making people in other religions look worse.
I agree some of it look of off topic, or at least unncessary disgression. But I think some of it is interesting. I read the current article on Islam and much to my surprise, I notice there was extremely little about islamism. I wonder if part of what is above would not fit over there.
---
While a lot of it is off-topic and POV, it tries to make the point that not all Islamic political movements are violent, which is something that should probably be prominently pointed out, since many people associate political Islam with terrorism; the only place where it seems to try to "excuse violent forms of Islam" is when it talks about insurgency against United States occupation forces in Iraq. It also argues that not all Islamic political movements are puritanical. I think that these bits should be integrated into the article. -- Khym Chanur
These poorly written and long-winded paragraphs are a obvious attempt to divert attention from the subject, instead of actually discussing it.
Well, there are more discussing something than just writing nothing, don't they ?
I find these attempts to stop discussing the subject shameful,
The previous serious contribution on the article was done in june. You can't really say last two days editions are stopping a discussion that didnot exist.
and part of a certain person's anarchist leftist tendencies. RK 13:30, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
So ? Leftist anarchist tendencies are also welcome on Wikipedia. I do not find your comments very helpful as now. I think part of this could be moved to Islam, and part to religion perhaps.Anthère
Err, taking the opposite tack from RK, I think that the text is not very neutral at all. E.g., "Islam is inherently political" is a POV statement. There are plenty of Muslims who do NOT feel it is appropriate to have Islamic states, and there are many more who are not willing or interested in fighting for an Islamic state, so long as they themselves can live according to Islam.
Now, we may individually degree with this interpretation, and in fact I do: I think the Islamist position has a lot of merit, and I find the arguments of, say, Hassan al-Banna compelling. Not that I agree with him, but if you believe that the Qu'ran is divinely inspired then it follows that the divine law laid out there should be the basis for your society, not (fallible) human law.
However, though this may be sound logic, it DOES NOT MATTER. The fact remains that there are many muslims who do NOT take this position, and who are NOT activists for Islamic states, and who do NOT want the Sharia to be imposed on everyone.
This is only one example of the highly POV nature of this essay; there are countless others. Much of the purpose of the text is not to provide information, but to argue specific points (e.g., "Islam is liberal on women, and to say otherwise is improper understanding of the Qu'ran")
Strike two, I don't think "Islamism" is a biased term. I have quoted text above giving reasons for this (i.e., it replaces terms like "fundamentalist") from well before the war on Terror, and from Muslim-friendly scholarly sources.
As I've said before, I have no particular attachment to the previous text, and I do -not- want to see this page locked. But neither do I want to see this crappy essay become the article, and avoid any discussion of Islamist movements. I -especially- don't want to see that discussion happen at militant Islam, where it is wholly inappropriate and doesn't belong. Calling movements for an Islamic state "militant Islam" is highly biased. Graft 14:47, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Graft, I agree with each of the points you just made. It seems that the person who wrote the above essay has his own interpretation of Islam that he wishes to portrary as the only interpretation of Islam. He doesn't recognize the very real disparity between his ideas and the actual range of beliefs and practices in the Muslim world. RK 20:33, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I would like to come back on two statements made by Graft.

First is ""Islam is inherently political" is a POV statement"

Second is "Strike two, I don't think "Islamism" is a biased term. I have quoted text above giving reasons for this (i.e., it replaces terms like "fundamentalist") from well before the war on Terror, and from Muslim-friendly scholarly sources."

I think you first didnot understand the first statement as it should. I think it was meant to say "Islamists view Islam as inherently political" or perhaps "Islamism is inherently political" ?

I would like to come back to what we french (compare to what you americans) define what islamism is

We call islamists those who see in islam an political ideology, that is a theory which allow to understand the social under the political. Islamists are the muslim brothers, Hassan el Banna, Maudidu, Khomeyni, Mohamed Baqer al Sadr, Mohamed Fadlallah, Sayd Qotb. There are several transitions, bridges. Islamists consider that the goal of their movement is to take power and to manage the state. They are politicians. Their goal is the State. They are not necessarily guerilla men. They do not necessarily support armed action. Khomeyni did, but not Hassan or Maududi,who were pragmatic men. If they had the possibility to take power by voting, they participated to elections, but if a revolt took place, they chose that action.

Islamists have a very political perception of islam. They think in terms of institutions. They consider an islamic State is necessary. They want a legislation, minister, state head, a constitution, perhaps separation of powers, electoral process, army head...Iran is an example. It also define a guide, the role of the guide, as a religious and a political chief. For islamists, the national cause is over the religious one, and war between Irak and Iran were clearly a war between nations, not on ideology. Most islamists mouvements, a threat in the 80ies, all become nationalists, included the algerian FIS. They stayed political mouvement, in a nation only. They have a program of islamisation, but they first think in termes of national interest, and political alliances.

Second, I understood you wrote islamism could be replaced by fondamentalism. Absolutely not !

Fondamentalism is different. One may be fondamentalist and islamist, but those two terms recover different notions. If they do recover the same thing for you, please accept that it is not so for everyone.

Fondamentalism is another form of protest. For fondamentalists, a society becomes islamist when everyone is a good muslim. If people pray as they should, apply the rules of the charia, then the society is islamist. They don't bother over the State. At best, it is an instrument, at worse an obstacle. Fondamentalists see first society and consider it a "community of believers" (well, we call that une communauté de croyant, that should be a translation option). On the political side, they first want application of the charia. They don't necessarily ask for an islamic constitution, do not wonder over political powers, over democracy. If everyone respects charia, then social justice is occurring automatically. That is what the traditional oulémas say. They are not necessarily against Occident, they want any muslim to be a good musmlim, and perhaps when other see that muslim society is good, they would convert. And if they don't, the case is already mentionned in the charia, it is no big deal. Fondamentalists are not necessary antisemites, or antichristian. They manage with colonialists. In Algeria, french people normalised the charia, they created a university of islamic law in Alger. But these fondamentalists are at the end of the system, they are in direct competition with laic state (non religious) or with islamists.

Then for many french, there is what we rather call the neofondamentalists. These are usually not "poor" or "rejected people as it is often claimed. Most of those recruited are students. These are typically the ones who happen to become fondamentalists in our suburbs in France. Usually not the poorest, because those in difficult situation are fighting for their survival, they often have more to do. The neofondamentalists in France are rather middle class. They occupy the room left by islamists. It is for those who don't have a nation state to identify themselves with. Either because they are immigrants (such as our second generation of algerian immigrants, born in France, but still in the middle of two nations, neither really french, neither really algerians), or perhaps apatrid, such as Ben Laden, for ideological reasons. The one fascinated with islamism also has to respect discipline, it is a way to be a good muslim in any part of the world, without any connection with a society, on a very individual basis. They often practice their religion alone. In France, it is quite typical that most converted are spending much more time on the Internet, than at cult. Perhaps is it also why so many of them of computer scientists. They can leave in a sort of irreal world, where they do not need to cope with their neighbours, with everyday life, with the next door girl, who goes on wearing short skirts and thus expose herself indecently.
In France, we talk of "sans papier" (people living in the country with no legal papers). In middle orient, they are very numerous because most middle oriental countries have rules of nationality very strict. Much much stricter than american rules :-) Often, one may be citizen only if their father is. In Koweit, about 1/3 of the population is not koweitian. In many countries, the dominant group does not allow minority group to have the nationality. As a result, many are "non-real citizen", and it appears that in Ben Laden groups, many of the guys are in that situation.
Some of these "lonely" people became radical when listening to Ben Laden. And the discourse was mostly two points. One : the fondamentalist dogma : charia, only charia. But how do you apply charia when you live in a country that is not a islamic state ? I understood it is somehow the "born again muslim" of the guys who were acting in 09/11 attack. In France, similarly, it results in rupture with the current laws of the society, such as burning a teenager who refused to cover her head.

Now, how could you "confuse" the terms islamism with fondamentalism. These are two different terms. One may be both, but they both recover different realities.

And yes, some french think we should not use the term islamic fundamentalism. Because the word fondamentalism carries with him some christian cliche. The word is masking the diversity of islamic mouvements, and their interpretation of Islam. It is often assimilated with opposition to occident or America, but in fact, it should not. I read several times, we should better use islamic activism, which hold apparently less connotation. Another word we use more and more is political islam. In any case, we hold that islamism is much more than a religious fondamentalism.

In this perception of what we french think that an islamist is, I see some aspect of the disputed text that are in line.

Anthère

Okay, we're generally in agreement. See my above comments responding to RK about fundamentalism, and how I -don't- think that "Islamists" are "fundamentalists". Also, I don't think the text intended to say "Islamism is inherently political", or to say, "islamists think Islam is inherently political"; it intended to say, "Islam is inherently political", which would be espousing the Islamist point of view. The current version of Islamism in fact already describes Islamism as you did: a political movement to create Islamic states like the one in Iran. Graft 18:27, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
the current top definition is "Islamism is a term used to describe the political and religious philosophies of fundamentalist Islamic revival movements.".
I read here that islamists are necessarily fundamentalists, since this is precisely part of the definition offered. Just above, you say you don't think islamists are fundamentalists. I must then conclude that you disagree with the first paragraph of the article. Am I wrong  ? Anthère
I saw you tried to remove the fundamentalists term :-) Anthère

The term Islamist is neutral and acceptable to most Muslims to mean anything from very mild use of Islamic imagery to define the legitimacy of the state, to full implementation of medieval fiqh. This is not the breadth of coverage of this article. It should be deleted, for these reasons:

  • it is disputed, and for good reason, and has been for months - review the Talk:Islamism/Archive 1
  • the primary advocate of this article who is not an idiot (User:Graft I mean is not an idiot) is actually advocating a POV from his own 1988 book, and thus has a conflict of interest, having invested much in this term.
  • this article is redundant given militant Islam, which has already been proposed for deletion - which failed, since there is no reason to delete it whatsoever - it being the more neutral term. The two cover the same material, and can't really coexist easily
  • the mere existence of the term as the prime title of an article about a substantial movement implies that Islamism is a neutral term accepted by that movement - whereas, those who accept the title Islamist come from a much wider variety of strains of political movements than those covered in the Islamism article - the common strain being that they accept Islam as a political movement.
  • the many inappropriate redirects to Islamism also imply that there is a common ideology pursued by Islamic parties, militant Islamic groups including those engaged in terrorism, and Liberal Islam - in effect all those lumped together as mildly to strongly Islamist - whereas Islam as a political movement is really quite diverse, and the trends listed in Islamism are quite minor politically. They are only a main force in Islam in the media, and a few very angry places.
  • User:RK exploits the protected status of the Islamism page, which would certainly cease to exist without the protection, to redirect every other mention of political Islam to it, among them Liberal Islam which is hardly what anyone means when they make reference to Islamism, although it might be what they mean when they refer to Islamist. This behaviour can only be discouraged by deleting the page Islamism
  • Several attempts to repair Islamism to redefine it correctly as a term applied to describe Islam as a political movement by those who reject that view entirely, and lump together unrelated movements, have failed. As with Islamofascism, there is no compromise with the people who insist on this one term and reject all others for POV reasons. Thus we owe them no respect here.
  • The article combines subjects that should, in addition to militant Islam and Islam as a political movement, be covered in modern Islamic philosophy - its existence simply creates redundancy.
  • The term Islamism has only been popular in recent years, and that mostly with American and Jewish commentators, while the British scholars have always preferred militant Islam prior to the War on Terrorism - thus many consider Islamism to be a propaganda term like Islamofascism.
  • the abusive tactics taken by User:RK might be taken up by other similar vandals, and will certainly discourage serious contributors from helping refine these articles - as it is evidently not possible to alter Islamism without incurring his tactics, it seems best to delete it to send him a strong message.
  • the abusive tactics taken by User:RK are censoring substantial material including quotes from important scholars like Ziauddin Sardar, Anthony Nutting and G. H. Jansen - see tarika for an example of the level of scholarship and detail that Jansen for instance applies to the subject, as compared to the sources cited in Islamism, which are of relatively recent and shallow vintage, and some of which are obviously written by folks who can hardly define Islamism neutrally.
  • the article and debates around it are now prone to leading to racist assumptions - for instance, User:RickK equates sending the name of User:RK to groups that are, according to RK, part of Liberal Islam, to some kind of "death threat" - as if these people don't have better things to do, and as if "death" is the only thing that they do with those they disagree with. Both RK and RickK seem to share this assumption, and it's probably common the United States, given the media bias. Let's not encourage this kind of political equation.

Suggestion: read Islam as a political movement, free free to copyedit it and militant Islam (both may have some quirks due to the frequent edit war situation) and decide for yourself if Islamism contains the same depth of coverage and breadth of sources, and the same neutral point of view advantages.

Some responses:
  • When I say "my book" above, I don't mean, "book that I wrote", but "book that I purchased and now own", so I have no particular ties to that book.
  • I have repeatedly stated why I feel militant Islam is not an appropriate term to describe groups advocating and agitating for an Islamic state, viz. there are many non-militants that should rightly be grouped with similar, though militant, ideologies.
  • I can well agree that there is a good deal of information not covered in the Islamism article, but this lack of breadth is by no means call of its deletion, rather its expansion.
  • I'm not opposed to moving this to a different article, especially since I think there are probably strong ideological differences between Shi'a and Sunni groups that advocate for Islamic states, for obvious reasons, and therefore should not necessarily be grouped together. However, lacking an appropriate term to label them, and not wishing to create one myself, I would favor keeping all such groups here, under Islamism, where there is at least justifiable reason for keeping them. So, until something more satisfying than militant Islam turns up, I cannot agree to chopping up this article. Graft 04:20, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I have to agree with Graft: Wahhabism and other listed movements aren't necessarily militant, so they shouldn't go under "militant Islam". And if there are many Islamic political movements which aren't coverered by this article, the article should be expanded to included them, rather than delted. -- Khym Chanur

I just want to say that "separation of church and state" has been invented in Muslin countries before it existed in Europe. The Catholic Church wasn't obviously a great fan of this idea it accepted it under the pressure of governements.... Ericd 07:29, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There is no parallel: these are two different religions and societies. The Caliph was "church" and state in one man, if it's meaningful to put it that way. Islam, unlike Christianity, is a political tradition. There is a big difference, especially in modern terms, between toleration (which Islamic rulers understood long before the western governments did), and separation (or "secularization"; which according to some is the suppression of Islam). When you speak of "Muslim countries" or "Muslim governments", you are not speaking of "separation of church and state" in Western terms. Mkmcconn 14:02, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Nod. A political tradition. Anthère

I'm no expert on Islam, but I do know something about reading an encyclopedia. And I'm disconcerted by the multiplicity of similarly-sounding terms like Islamism, Islamicism etc.

My history books tell me that Islam is both a religion and a civilization based on that religion. Adherents of Islam are called Muslims. Everyone with me so far?

Check Le Mouvement des Musulmans Laïques de France s'engage to see your conviction that Adherents of Islam are called Muslims shake :-)

Now, Islam certainly has some political aspects. There's the well-known function of the Qur'an in Sharia law. There's also the well-know fact that Arab countries generally exalt Islam -- often to the point of making it a state religion.

What are all the separate articles for? Can anyone make a list or disambiguation page or directory of the various articles touching on Islam? We had something like that last year for the 2003 Iraq war.

I write this without prejudice to whether Islam is good or bad; whether Muslims are good or bad; whether Islamic governments are good are bad. Rather, I write as a peer editor, requesting help sorting it all out. Organization is the key. --Uncle Ed 19:00, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ed, why don't you read the article first? Graft 07:29, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm suffering some sort of technical glitch and the comment I used on my edit got chopped off. The reason was that the addition called something a "threat" without attributing that opinion to someone other than the writer. We aren't allowed to do that. I'm not saying anything at all about the accuracy of the opinion. If it's rephrased in the proper fashion I won't complain. --Zero 03:59, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wow, this page is pretty useless. It doesn't describe "Islamism" at all, but lumps together all sorts different Muslim movements. the Deobandis and the Wahhabis certainly are not Islamists. And Islamism has nothing to do with fundamentalism or puritanism, or violence. And al-Qaida is certainly NOT Islamist. --Katangoori 15:55, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was told by an Islamic scholar that Islamism was a term expressly coined for the right-wingers that want to violently force Islam as a religion and political system onto others. I am completely flummoxed as to how al-Qaida would fail to be Islamist. They're sure NOT ISLAMIC. It seems to me that Islamism has EVERYTHING to do with fundamentalism and violence. Or are you just an apologist for the most craven evil currently on Earth? jaknouse 05:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
First of all, an "Islamic scholar" is not the right person to be asking about "Islamism". "Islamism" is not an Islamic term, but a term used in political science and sociology -- a scholar of Islam will have no better understanding of the word than joe bloggs. After 9/11 everyone(especially the media) gives their own interpretation of the term "Islamism", however within academia it has had a very specific meaning, which is separate from "fundamentalism", for a very long time. You can read the Halliday/Alavi quote at the very top of this page, or you can read anything by Roy, Kepel, Vali Nasr, Eickelman, Zakaria, Piscatori, Halliday, etc.... Now, al-Qaida is generally categorized as a "fundamentalist" group, not "Islamist". The reason being that Islamists have a specific political, social and economic agenda for what they want to do when they take control of the state (read the literature of the Muslim Brotherhood, Khomeini, or Jamaat-i Islami Pakistan). However the fundamentalists (or "neo-fundamentalists as Roy calls them) just want to take control of the state but have no agenda of what they will do afterwards (i.e. Taliban, al-Qaida). They do not argue in terms of economics, or society -- it's simply about control. Also, there are those Islamists who justify the use of violence (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood Egypt), and there are those Islamists who believe in taking control expressly through the prevailing political system (i.e. Jamaat-i Islami India, Muslim Brotherhood Kuwait). More later. --Katangoori 06:59, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

US Troops in Saudi Arabia

The US no longer has troops in Saudi Arabia. Islamists are angry about a presence the US once had in SA and that should be clarified.

That's not correct. The US continues to maintain military operations in Saudi Arabia, but many of the US military operations that were once run from Saudi Arabia have been moved to the recently established CENTCOM headquarters in Qatar. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq states, "According to the New York Times, the invasion secretly received support from Saudi Arabia. [1]." What happened was that Saudi Arabia secretely allowed US forces to launch attacks against Iraq from Saudi Arabian airbases. Obviously this was not kept a secret for very long, since the New York Times reported it. In fact the Crown Prince himself ended the secrecy by letting the US media know that Saudi Arabia was part of the American "coallition of the willing." --Zeno of Elea 22:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Pascifist Islamists???

' Some Islamist groups advocate only a non-violent path to an Islamic system of government. ' ???

Welfare Party in Turkey springs to mind. Commitee for Defence of the Rights of the Saudi People is another. Many branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. That's off the top of my head. This article is littered with inaccuracies. Why is Islamism defined as conservative, for example? John Ball 22/07/04 9:50.

Can I see some documentation of this? Have you reviewed:
I also want documentation for John Ball's interesting and unreferenced claims. RK
Well, the Welare Party is the current, elected, governing party in Turkey. John Ball
I've added a short para on the Justice and Development Party in this article. The Welfare Party have been defunct since 2000. The other party which emerged from their embers, the [[Felicity Party {Turkey)|]] is much more conservative, although also has no truck with terrorism. Similarly for much of the religious opposition in Saudi, most of whom seem to be headquartered in the area of London I live in, although I know less there as an amateur Turkicist, not an Islamicist or an Arabist!
AFAIK, Turkey's Justice and Development Party is not an Islamist party but a secular party with a Muslim-majority. In fact constitutionally, Islamist political parties are banned in Turkey.
It does seem to me that RK and his doubters need to come to some sort of multiple POV consensus. You also probably need someone who actually is an Islamist here as well - surely putting out a call on Talk:Islam would bring some one in? I do not regard Daniel Pipes as an impartial source personally, but your mileage may, of course, vary. Gerry Lynch 14:08, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I forgot the morphing of Welfare into JDP. John Ball 27/07/04 16:35
    • Islamist movements

Which of these is the non-violent one? Sam [Spade] 01:43, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Fair criticism. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say something like "some Islamic thinkers advocate a non-violent..." See [2] for example - there are plenty more - see this comprehensive reading list [3] .

But I think the confusion here stems from the fact that the definition of the term Islamist given on the page: "Islamism is an ideology which holds that Islam is not only a religion, but a system that also governs the politicial, economic and social imperatives of the state" is not the popular use definition of the term. Clearly the belief that Islam should be a governing system is one held by non-violent Muslims as well as violent ones, just as this is true of Christians and Marxists. Islamism, at is most basic form, is a claim about ends, violence is a choice of means.

But as you say, the large and active Islamic groups in the world today all advocate armed struggle so perhaps the statement needs weakening. I think it's important to make clearly early that armed sturggle is not a necessary consequence of Islamism, though.

Look at the page in more detail, Islam as a political movement has a solid introduction covering these points perhaps the addition should be "This article focuses on militant-Islamist groups, Some Islamists advocate only a nonviolent path to an Islamic system of government see Islam as a political movement for more discussion."

Cheers Jamie Camipco 19:52, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I understand your point, and agree that this is a matter of defining "Islamism" properly. The question to me is if ANY proper Islamist expouses non-violence, (I assume none do) and if you are correct when you say "armed sturggle is not a necessary consequence of Islamism" (I think perhaps you are not). We will need verification of course of these particulars. The link you supply (only the 2nd one worked for me) seem sufficient to show that some Muslims contemplate Pascifism, but do not display in my eyes an example of Islamist pascifism. Sam [Spade] 21:43, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Sam, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (the original Islamist movement, which serves as the inspiration for most Sunni Islamists) has for years espoused a philosophy of non-violent civil disobedience which has earned them the praise and support of a number of human rights groups in the face of repression by the Egyptian government. Graft 16:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That is a distortion. The Muslimn brotherhood, an organization with many arms, has also been involved in promoting terrorism and murder. It has split into many groups, including al-Gama'a al-Islamiya (the Islamic Group). They worked with Islamic Jihad to assassinate Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadatin 1981. They only appear "peaceful" if you restrict yourself to those adherents who are peaceful, and ignore all those adherents who are not peaceful! But that is not intellectually honest; it gives us a distorted picutre of the movement as a whole. RK
Wrong again, RK, as you say al-Gama'a al-Islamiya is a split from the MB, ie: it is NOT the MB. John Ball 29/07/04 13:40.
I've heard a lot of the same, that the Brotherhood is the ruling force behind Islamic Jihad and so on. I'm not sure what the truth is; their commitment to non-violence has always seemed more tactical than ideological and thus open to compromise. If someone could find some of their writing on the subject of non-violence that would be extremely useful. Unfortunately I have no books on the subject. Graft 13:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good edit. The hard part is in distinguishing between muslims generally, and Islamists in particular. In my experience "Islamist" is largely a perjorative, similar to Fascism or Communism, and used to signify "bad muslim". In short I feel it is a label only used by the opposition, and thus quite tricky. Sam [Spade] 01:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Definitions

The term "Islamism" is not a perjorative, and for that matter, neither is Fascism and certainly not Communism. Each of these terms have a specific meaning in academia. "Islamism" was not a term coined by opposition but scholars of political science and sociology who observed this phenomenon. In short, Islamists are those people believe that Islam is not only a religion but that it also has a specific social, economic and political agenda. Now, you can argue over whether Islamists are Muslims, but you can not say that these two terms refer to exactly the same concept. The supposed "founding fathers" of Islamism are generally recognized as being Syed Qutb of Egypt and Abul 'ala Maududi of India/Pakistan. Certainly, the ideas that these guys proposed were not representative of the entire Muslim spectrum, and expecially not of the ulema at the time. My point is that the term "muslim" refers to anyone who claims to be a follower of "Islam" in any interpretation. "Islamist" refers to someone following one specific interpretation of the religion. --Katangoori 15:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

The first sentance is particularly questionable, but we generally appear to agree on the facts, if not their interpretation. Sam [Spade] 18:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Okay, yeah, maybe my first sentence is questionable. May be I should say instead that Islamism, Fascism, and Communism are sometimes used as perjoratives by sections of the lay public and media, however they each also have a specific academic meaning which is not in any way perjorative. My hope is that we use the academic meanings because as terms they are more useful to us in that they correspond to well recognized observations, theories, and models of how to interpret the social actions of each group. --Katangoori 15:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would argue that Islamism is unique amongst that list in being used exclusively by non-members. No Islamsist calls themselves one, unlike Communists, Fascists, etc.. who sometimes do call themselves by those names. Also the use of the term by academics in no way reduces the inherently negative and IMO pejorative connotations. Sam [Spade] 15:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The fact that no Islamist calls themself "Islamist" does not mean that the term is inappropriate. Most racists probably would not accept the label either, but that does not mean that label is inappropriate, or perjorative. The identity itself may have negative connotations, but the -label- is not a slur. Compare to "pinko", which is definitely perjorative. Graft 16:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that the lable was innapropriate, but was rather exploring the usage and definition of the term. I would say that "racist" is definitely a perjorative, having more negativity attached to those it is used against than most racial slurs themselves these days (nigger is rapidly becomming a term of affection, for example). I don't intend to make a value judgement about Islamists nor those who lable them in this article, but rather to ensure that the definition we produce is congruous with that in general use, rather than being ideosyncratic or sanitized. IMO the term is used with the same meaning within the media, academia, and the general public. Sam [Spade] 21:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why not consider 'islamist' as a handy shorthand for 'islamic fundamentalist'? --Rudi Dierick 14:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because the latter is an even fuzzier term? And in the way they are usually used, less specific.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:09, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Merge?

Due to a past dispute, the related article Islam as a political movement was created as a copy of this one, which was allegedly being censored. Having parallel pages did not solve the dispute, but the articles have existed separately since that point.

There is now an attempt to have the pages merged back together (specifically, to merge Islamism into Islam as a political movement). However, they both have undergone significant changes, and their content is markedly different. Furthermore, I think their titles reflect distinct subject matter: Islam as a political movement indicates an article about the religion of Islam as a political force throughout its history; Islamism should be an article about a specific political movement that developed in the 20th century among certain elements within Islam. The first article is broader, and deals with a subject that will continue to evolve as long as Islam itself exists. The second article has a more narrow focus, and deals with a phenomenon whose future is less certain - it may grow, shrink, or even die.

Since I find a valuable purpose in having both pages, I definitely oppose merging them at this point. Naturally, both pages should link to each other, and the specific phenomenon of Islamism should be discussed, though more briefly, in Islam as a political movement. It is possible that some of the content currently on one page might be more appropriately relocated to the other. If people have other concerns with the content of either page, they should feel free to raise them, but I don't think merging these pages is the solution. --Michael Snow 21:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

recently addede and deleted material

Confirmed. The recently added material was written by the banned user, EntmootsOfTrolls. It was a serious of off-topic meanderings denying that Islamism really existed, attacking the west and Christianity, and a denial that Islamic societies really are Islamic. I have thus removed much of this material. RK 12:36, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Graft, it is a violation of NPOV policy to remove views and statements that you personally disagree with. If you have better stats, please show them. But the Muslim expert quotes is far more knowledgeable on the subject than you or I. You can't delete his estimates based entirely on your ad homenim attack. RK 00:11, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Graft writes "RK, you can't add whatever crap you want to this article simply because it supports your thesis that America is teeming with Islamist radicals."

Readers should be aware that I never said any such thing, and neither did any of the sources I quoted. RK 20:14, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
RK, you can't add whatever crap you want to this article simply because it supports your thesis that America is teeming with Islamist radicals. For example, Steve Emerson was exposed as a fraudulent schmuck. See this article for a description of the newspaper that caught him in the act. Besides that, common sense should tell you that 100,000 is an enormous number, and if there really were this many "hard-core" Islamic fundamentalists (which is about 2% of the Muslim population of the US), there would have been dozens of terrorist incidents in the US by now. Please remove the Steve Emerson junk yourself, and the Kabbani quote (since he does NOT justify his numbers, it is simply speculation - there is no call to quote speculation as authoritative) and in the future be more careful about the sources you quote. Graft 05:14, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but Steve Emerson is universally acknowledged as an expert on this issue. Wikipedia NPOV policy demands that we include points of view, even if we happen to find one author that disagrees with this POV. RK 20:12, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
Did you even read the article I linked to? Steve Emerson is a lying fraudster. Read [4] and [5] for even more. Do you suggest we also go around quoting David Irving authoritatively on the Holocaust, because NPOV policy demands that we include points of view? Graft 20:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I did read this out of context smear job. It is a an attack by someone with an agenda. It represents the point of view of a small group of people who have anger towards people write about radical Islam. However, the fact remains that Steve Emerson is an established authority on this subject, and his views are accepted as such by many mainstream historians, as well as by moderate Muslims. Your comparison of him to a holocaust denier is out of of bounds, and false on its face. Again, you fail to understand that just because you and a handful of others do not lile this man, does not mean that everyone else does. RK
Steve Emerson's prominent witch-hunt of Sami al-Arian was also carefully dissected by a number of major papers, including the Miami Herald, and found to be totally without basis, an utter fabrication. Emerson has refused to admit this, and insists that everyone else is wrong (including the FBI, INS, and all the papers that said he was wrong). The fact that Bill O'Reilly has him on the Factor does not make him an established authority, nor does the fact that he received a measure of attention following 9/11. Many mainstream figures have noted that this man is a liar and spreads false stories. Graft 00:49, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As to the hartford Seminary study, it's available .org/mosquereport/Masjid_Study_Project_2000_Report.pdf here (pdf). Your text is hardly appropriate. The study says that only 21% (one in five, not one in three) of mosques teach a literal interpretation of Islam, rather than leaving questions open to modern interpretation (70%). This would be analagous to Orthodox and Reformed Judaism, and certainly does NOT mean that these mosques are Islamist. Your two-thirds contention is simply wrong - the study does not at all suggest that mosques preach that America is moral. It doesn't even ask that question. It asks about the personal beliefs of the mosque representatives surveyed. I'd bet a good percentage of Christians in this community think this country is immoral under the rule of liberal elites and homosexuals. In any event, this STILL doesn't make you an Islamist. So, I'm not sure what the point of your highly-misleading text is. Graft 05:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here's the text: A study by the Hartford Seminary showed that one third of mosques in the USA preach a fundamentalist form of Islam, while two thirds of the leaders of American mosques preach that America is immoral.

You'll note it reads "1/3", not "1/5". Also, the relevance of this study to Islamism is unclear. Even assuming that 1/5 of mosques teach a literal interpretation of the Quran, this does NOT make them Islamist - there's much more to being Islamist than that, agreed? Furthermore, the study does NOT say that 2/3 of leaders "preach" anything - it only inquires about their personal belief. Would you care to defend this text, or shall I simply remove it again? Graft 20:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, you are still attacking beliefs I do not have. You still are suffering from the misimpression that someone is trying to prove that most American Muslims are fanatics. I think that the real problem is that there is no one good reference for the extent of Islamism in America or across the world. As such, in accord with our NPOV policy, I am offering a number of estimates from totally unrelated sources. If you know of better estimates, please add them as well! But we shouldn't remove any estimate related to this phenomenon, and then add a strawman reference to Daniel Pipes. This has nothing to do with him. Let us look for as many sources on estimates as possible; info from newer surveys would be of special interest. RK 21:36, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
You win! (No, I am not being sarcastic.) Graft, I am removing a section of the material based on your discussions in the Talk page. Also, I added two more sentences in another section to provide more context. This should clarify that these estimates do not imply that most Muslims are not Islamists or terrorists. And I am still open to other sources you would like to bring! RK 02:17, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
Steve Emerson still remains in the text, now with no sort of descriptor at all. I'd be interested to hear what other's opinions are on maintaining his quote. Graft 16:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Steve Emerson is not a commentator in good standing. Everyone knows he is a political activist, even the people who believe his claims. --Zero 23:52, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Causes of anti-western sentiment

I'm taking exception to the last clause of the second paragraph, but I don't want to change it without some discussion. It currently reads: gaining much ground through appropriating anti-Western sentiment which has emerged due to the occupation of the Palestinian-populated West Bank by Israel. Now I will not dispute that the Israeli control of the West Bank/Gaza is one continuing cause of anti-Western sentiment throughout the Arab world; but there are certainly others -- the CIA led overthrow of Iran's government in the early 1950's, to name one example. I'd suggest striking the whole implied causal link, and changing anti-Western to anti-Western/colonialist. Given the past volatility of this page, though, can I get some consensus first?

However, Israeli occupation is continually cited by Islamists and their sympathizers as one of the most egregious sins of the West; the CIA overthrow of Mossadegh, by contrast, might be said to have been redeemed by the Islamic Revolution in 1979. I think the emphasis on Israel/Palestine is appropriate since it is given such prominence by Islamists, and in general arouses a huge amount of sympathy in the Arab world, something Westerners may not appreciate. Graft 03:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
IMHO, when Islamists cite the Israeli occupation it is simply an excuse but even if Israel did not exist they would still hate the "West". This is because they always need to find some excuse to legitimize hatred towards non-Muslims or "West" as you call it.
I think there is some truth to what you say about Israel being an excuse. However, to Islamists, Israel's existence and actions represent the threat of the outside world. The larger issue seems to be the strong need to be insulated from influences which are at odds with Islamic orthodoxies. This is particularly true as the media (and, in particular, the internet) are increasingly available to the Islamic population. Wikismile 14:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Emphasis I don't mind, it's the allegation of causality I object to. Mdwyld 04:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mdwyld. The way it's written suggests that "anti-western sentiment" never existed until 1967. Corvus 06:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Recent deletions regarding Wahhabism

Hello Hadj,

Just curious why you removed some things - for example, that al-Wahhab saw those who did not follow his philosophy as non-Muslims (e.g., if you visited the grave of some Sufi saint, you were not a Muslim) and made use of violence against non-Muslims. Do you dispute that this is true? Graft 15:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not discussing if it happend or not; I'm discussing the teachings of Salafis and Wahhabism and what they are telling us. But according to what I've read till know on Salafism/Wahhabism there is no actual violence against deviated Islam groups. Instead of a violent Jihad against these people they initiated a Jihad with their tongue. As I may quote from the famous Saudi scholar, Sheikh Munajidd:"It is well known that jihad against the hypocrites is not like jihad against the kuffaar, because jihad against the hypocrites is fought with knowledge and argument, whilst jihad against the kuffaar is fought with swords and arrows. "
So till now I have no indication to support your statement A. 20:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Since there may be many things of which we are ignorant, in general it's not good practice to go and remove those things that are outside our scope of knowledge. In this case, it's pretty easy to ascertain that al-Wahhab in fact initiated several violent conflicts and fought many battles against other Muslims, most notably the Ottoman Turks. Graft 00:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you have any proof to back this up and have the source(s) telling that the religious sources of the Wahhabies force them to use violence against other Muslims I would happily to see that being written with the sources. A. 09:06, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unclear words = unclear info

I have made some minor/major changes to the wording of the second paragraph as I feel it offers a confusing explanation with words hinting at things but not making them clear. I have tried to make this opening paragraph simply expositional rather then having views.

I have removed 'Nationalism, Communism, Fascism, etc.' as, despite the word against in the next sentence, it suggests they are components of Islamist thought. The words 'deals with' emphasises this as Islamism probably deals with liberalism and capitalism as well. I have also changed the word 'appropriating' as this suggests they borrowed it off of someone else which makes you want to ask who. Although 'adopting' could be accused of that it does not, I don't think, presuppose a political continuity that is not properly explained.

I have no problem if you wish to clearly say that it is based on a particular ideology but hinting at links just gives it a distorted, confused feel. MeltBanana 21:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Minor edits

Copied from User talk:Graft and User talk:iFaqeer

Hi I! Nice edit on Islamism, but just a note: usually, the minor edit tag is reserved for edits that do not substantially affect meaning, e.g. typos or insertion of conjunctions, etc. Thus, even the addition of a single word may not necessarily be a 'minor edit', depending on what the word is. This is a useful convention to follow since some people keep minor edits hidden, and it would be rude to slip contentious changes in meaning past their notice. (Perhaps your flag was merely an error - in which case I apologize for my presumption). Anyway, have a nice day! Graft 16:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right about the error. I have set my preferences to have the "This is a minor edit" flag to be "on" by default, so the wikification, grammar, and text edits that I am more often making (for subjects related to South Asia, Pakistan, Islam, etc.) aren't flagged as major changes. The problem is that I had stopped paying attention that flag. And now that you have mentioned it, I have recently created whole new articles (in fact, half of the entries at Category:Chiefs of Army Staff, Pakistan) with that flag set. Thanks for the reminder. I did not intend to slip anything by anyone. I fully realize that the changes at the top of Islamism are pretty fundamental, and didn't mean to imply otherwise.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:23, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Some help on Template talk:Timeline of Islamist militancy!

According to Pename, he checked the Oxford English Dictionary from Oxford University Press and it says that Islamism is as follows:

Islamism / 'zlmz()m/, / 's-/ → n. Islamic militancy or fundamentalism. - DERIVATIVES Islamist ( also Islamicist ) n. & adj.

SOURCE: "Islamism n." The Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004 <http://www.oxfordreference.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t23.e29279>;

He also found the following:

Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation. Became the favored state policy during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 1876–1909) and was adopted and promoted by members of the ruling bureaucratic and intellectual elites of the empire. With the rise of colonialism, became a defensive ideology, directed against European political, military, economic, and missionary penetration. Posed the sultan as a universal caliph to whom Muslims everywhere owed allegiance and obedience. Sought to offset military and economic weakness in the Muslim world by favoring central government over the periphery and Muslims over non-Muslims in education, office, and economic opportunities. Ultimately failed and collapsed after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Resurrected during the resurgence of Islam after World War II. Expressed via organizations such as the Muslim World League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which seek to coordinate Islamic solidarity through political and economic cooperation internationally. Has also served as an important political tool in recruiting all-Muslim support against foreign aggressions.

SOURCE: "Islamism" Oxford Dictionary of Islam. John L. Esposito, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004 <http://www.oxfordreference.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t125.e1819>;

Based on this information, it would appear that this article has missing information. Would someone care to comment? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ahem. I just noticed your note to Mustafaa, I think it was, and came over here. The earlier Islamism described in the Oxford Dictionary of Islam did indeed exist. I've been proofreading books about early 20th century Islamic politics for Distributed Proofreaders, and it is just as the Dictionary says. The Ottomans were wavering between rejecting and accepting European ways. Sultan Abdulhamid wanted to stand up against the Europeans, and tried to leverage his formal position as Caliph to unite all Muslims everywhere behind him. Apparently lots of Muslims in various British colonies supported him, not that they had the power to do much. I'd call this Islamism from the top down, a Caliph trying to revive the Caliphate. The Islamism that frightens people now is Islamism from the bottom up. It's protest against various autocratic and corrupt Arabic/Muslim governments, perceived as supported by the U.S. and tainted with modern ways. Very different Islamisms.
Interesting. Is it called Islamism in those texts?
Not that I remember. The particular book I'm remembering is out of the proofreading rounds and probably in post-processing, where I can't get at it. But I'll check -- it might be done by now. Zora 20:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just coincidentally, I am currently reading Seven Pillars of Wisdom by Lawrence of Arabia and that brought back to mind what the stuff you are talking about was called. He refers to the:
the hierarchic conception of Islam and the pan-Islamic theories of the old Sultan" See: [6]
BTW, I am reading that book for the first time. What was I thinking?!!! It's a must-read. (Just keep in mind the time and place; which in your case shouldn't be that big a problem.) —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:26, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
I am not averse to providing both definitions. But opposed to blurring the difference between either or both of those and Islam in general.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:34, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
I believe I've also seen the earlier Islamism described as the Khalifat movement. Would have to check that. Zora 12:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Didn't want to let this go without an explanation. The Khilafat Movement (not Khalifat; a distinction that points to its not being based in the Arab world) was a movement amongst the Muslims of British India (the largest single Muslim community in one geo-political entity at the time, if I am not wrong) that agitated to try and make sure the British, victors of WWI, kept the promise made at Versailles that the Caliphate would not be abolished. The parallel would be, say, if, after WW II, the victors had proposed abolishing the Papacy (not the Pope's temporal role as a political ruler) because, as some believe, of the Church's non-opposition of the Nazis and Catholics in, the US had started a movement to pressure their government to not let it/make it happen. Just because they didn't want the Papacy abolished would not make them supporters of the Pope's old role as hegemon of Europe.
And being from South Asia, I can assure you that the people supporting the Khilafat Movement (which included Gandhi) were not anywhere close to political viewpoint and beliefs of today's Islamists. In fact, the Great Arab Revolt of Lawrence of Arabia fame was fighting the Ottomans and helped hasten the end of the Khilafah/Caliphate.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:21, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
It would help if he had used a resource that one of us could get to. And the reference he is quoting is not a dictionary, but a reference library that is quoting one very specific writer who has his own POV. Describing something that lasted almost 1400 years as having "failed" stands out, for example.
The dictionaries I have access to give the following:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/I0247900.html:
SYLLABICATION: Is·lam·ism
PRONUNCIATION: s-lämzm, z-, sl-, z-
NOUN: 1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life. 2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.
'OTHER FORMS: Is·lamist —ADJECTIVE & NOUN
or:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Islamist&x=0&y=0
Main Entry: Is·lam·ism'
Pronunciation: is-'lä-"mi-z&m, iz-, -'la-; 'iz-l&-'
Function: noun'
the faith, doctrine, or cause of Islam'
- Is·lam·ist /-mist/ noun'
A "revivalist" movement can hardly have existed since the beginning of a religion's history.
Furthermore, if you go to any encyclopedia, you get different, or maybe more specific results. For example, a search of the sort:
http://www.britannica .com/search?query=Islamist&submit=Find&source=MWBOX
gives links to a very specific type and family of organization, the Islamic Salvation Front, an Algerian Islamist political party, the Armed Islamic Group, an Algerian militant group affiliated with the same, Egyptian Islamists and so on.
Then just google "Islamist" and see what pops up outside of Wikipedia:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Islamist
Dictionaries often only provide the literal meaning of a word, usually the basic linguistic meaning. And those meanings evovle with time. And this evolution happens in the context of academic discussions and common use. For example, the definition of "fundamentalist" in one of the same dictionaries is:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/F0362700.html
fundamentalism
SYLLABICATION: fun·da·men·tal·ism
PRONUNCIATION: fnd-mntl-zm
NOUN: 1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. 2a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture. b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
OTHER FORMS: funda·mental·ist —ADJECTIVE & NOUN
funda·mental·istic —ADJECTIVE
while another gives
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fundamentalist&x=0&y=0
Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
- fun·da·men·tal·ist /-t&l-ist/ noun
- fundamentalist or fun·da·men·tal·is·tic /-"men-t&l-'is-tik/ adjective
The second meaning is mainly of late 20th century usage. If one had used the word "Fundamentalist" in the early 20th century, it would have meant a very specific type of Christian. Now it can mean people from several religions.
The point? The point is that a literalist dictionary meaning belongs in the dictionary. And they evolve. Dictionaries are updated. In an encyclopedia, we capture what it means in the wider world and present information that helps people understadn their world. And hopefully as complete a picture as we collectively can. Google "Islamist" and see what comes up. I would agree and support something in the beginning that said something like "Islamist is sometimes taken in a literalist sense to mean any political movement that takes Islam as it's guiding principle. However, it usually refers to..." and then what is there now.
My tuppence 'orth.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:47, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Another source

Martin Kramer has written a very long article on the subject. Would anyone care to comment, or to extract the information from his references and add to this article? The link is [7]. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Further to what the OED says

Att the risk of being repetitive, I need to requote the article that Pename gave us from the OED:

Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation. Became the favored state policy during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 1876–1909) and was adopted and promoted by members of the ruling bureaucratic and intellectual elites of the empire. With the rise of colonialism, became a defensive ideology, directed against European political, military, economic, and missionary penetration. Posed the sultan as a universal caliph to whom Muslims everywhere owed allegiance and obedience. Sought to offset military and economic weakness in the Muslim world by favoring central government over the periphery and Muslims over non-Muslims in education, office, and economic opportunities. Ultimately failed and collapsed after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Resurrected during the resurgence of Islam after World War II. Expressed via organizations such as the Muslim World League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which seek to coordinate Islamic solidarity through political and economic cooperation internationally. Has also served as an important political tool in recruiting all-Muslim support against foreign aggressions.

SOURCE: "Islamism" Oxford Dictionary of Islam. John L. Esposito, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004

Let's lay this to rest.

OK, I was confused to start off with, but here's how I take this: the sentence "Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation." It seems to me that what's being said here is that the concept of "sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims" has existed since the early days of Islam, and not the term "Islamism" itself. I mean, it can't mean that or it'd be factually wrong because Islamism comes from the French word islamisme, which was itself coined by Voltaire, who existed in the 18th century. The context of what is written would also bear this out because the next sentence is "Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation."

It seems Pename didn't read this carefully enough. Heck, I know I didn't! I thought it meant the same thing Pename meant when I first gave it a cursory read. But then, that's what happens when you use a non-full sentence like "Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims". It means that a certain ambiguity creeps into the text, and can cause confusion. Who would have thought the OED would write such a thing? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamism/Archive_1&oldid=1266976911"