Talk:Islamism

Islamism in London

This used to be a separate article but after a vote it was moved here as a section. Wikipedia prevents it from becoming a separate article since the vote has been made against it. Trouble is, it's quite long, and this article is already too long. I'm going to summarize it and put a main article link to Londonistan (term)

Here's the summary --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

For those who object I suggest they create an Islamism in Europe article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material: "Islamic Flag"

Not only this so called "Islamic Flag" is out of place, but the whole description and meaning of it seem to be taken out of some B-movie involving a stereotypical plot about "terrism". Either provide sources that it is indeed an "Islamic Flag" and that the description is true, or it will be deleted in accordance to WP:NOCITE. --Kray0n (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Islamism should be subsumed under the "Left-Wing" category

According to the same principles of notability and common agreement as applied to nazism being right-wing - popular tendency is to put islamism on the left wing of the political axis, and because Wikipedia is not a matter of original research, this tendency should result in Islamism actually being counted as left-wing on Wikipedia as well. The argument can be lifted verbatim from the article about nazism being right-wing. Maybe someone who knows the system here better can make the required changes, although I can provide references to individuals calling Islamism left-wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.136.254 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood Subverted by Islamism

http://picpaste.com/warning-about-islamism-00ToI1QX.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.151.118 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Trimming

I trimmed this from the Islamism#Relation between Islam and Islamism section

Scholars like like Javed Ahmad Ghamidi have argued that all the actions of the Prophet Muhammad do not form an example for Muslims to follow, a sunnah. He holds that the da'wah (preaching and propagation) by a Messenger of God has targets defined by God and are specific to him. The role of the individual believer, the scholars and even a state with Muslim domination is different from that of a Prophet. The Prophet can after making the message clear to his addressees, under God's direction, fight the rejecters of the message. The Qur'an, after this stage in the Prophetic mission of Muhammad, did not leave the polythiests of Arabia with an option to live and adhere to polythiesm. They were to be executed if they did not enter Islam. This option is not available to any after the Prophet since no one can know who is rejecting the Message knowingly for no one is in a position to interact with God and no one receives revelation from Him.Political Canon of Islam

Reason: The article is already very long, the author is not particularly notable, and the text better belongs in Criticism of Islamism or Political aspects of Islam. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Central figures

An anon poster keesp adding Ismet Özel as a central figure of Islamism. He is an elected leader of a large country, but his he influential as an islamist? Does anyone have a source stating he is a central figure? In the mean time I'm deleting it again. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Whos saud Al Qaeda is Islamist, or have any relation with islam? Wikipedia in my eye is losing its respect, its so racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.110.121 (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Better Criticism Section Needed

Okay, this article is pretty dumb as it is. It should be linked with other racist and imperialist terms like Cracker and White Trash. The criticism section should not be a criticism of "Islamism" as a movement, which doesn't exist, but a criticism of the simpletons who coined this term in the first place. The word "Islam" itself means "submission". Sure, there are Islamic people -25 percent of the world, the world's fastest growing religion, etc.... But someone who subscribes to Islam is a "Muslim" -i.e., "one who submits". Okay, so some non-religionists and Christianists on Fox news and CNN use the term "Islamist" everday -doesn't mean its not a bigoted stereotype. This article should not be deleted, but should be put in the category of stereotypes and hate-speech. Remember, as Edward Said points out, there is a long history of purposivly mislabeling Muslims -who were for centuries called "Mohammedans", just as much of the media refused to call Cassius Clay by his real name Muhammad Ali. Lets rewrite the criticism section here and make sure readers know that this terms is a wilfull misrepresentation and not a description of anything at all. Teetotaler 5 January, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As the article says, al jazeera uses the term islamist. Are they simipletons and racists? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

African-Americans often use the term 'nigger' to refer to themselves, that doesnt stop the term from being an ethnic slur. Similiarly, al jazeera using the term islamist to refer to themselves doesnt validate the use of the term as a non-racist term. 203.128.4.254

What validates it's use as a non-racist term is that "Islamism" refers to a political movement, not a race. Aside from that do you think there is a difference between gangsta bad boy talk and one of the leading world news agencies? Do you think an influential political movement of Muhammad Iqbal, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Abul Ala Maududi, Sayyid Qutb, Hasan al-Banna, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, deserves a term to describe it? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

edits by 95.147.234.97 in lead

I deleted edits by 95.147.234.97 (and he has restored them) as they are unsourced opinions, the topic (of diversity in Islam and Islamism) is already covered, and the article is already very long. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Radical Islam

Why does Radical Islam redirect here? Is there no way to distinguish violent Jihadists and the poltics of Al Queda from other more moderate Muslims? Bachcell (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(I fixed your link.) Because someone created it as a redirect to here, plain and simple. Should someone wish to turn Radical Islam into a separate article from this one, possibly as an offshoot of this one, then it will be otherwise. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is racist, how come all the citations are from christian sources? HUH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.110.121 (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC) How about radical christianity and jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.110.121 (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If Islam is a universal and interracial religion, then it follows that any discussion, negative or otherwise, about it's spread throughout the world cannot be deemed "racist". Logic trumps bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gutumnbagem (talk • contribs) 09:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of Islamism

An editor can't pull out a quote by someone, and accuse the quote of being Islamist. A reliable source needs to have made that allegation.

This is the same as pulling a quote from Daniel Pipes, and putting it at Islamophobia as an example. A reliable source needs to have made the allegation.Bless sins (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bigotry" section

Amanisa please stop putting this section in the article.

NYT: Bigotry in Islam, The Islamic world represses women, spawns terrorism, is prone to war, resists democracy and promotes bigotry against Jews (anti-semitism) [180], The Daily Telegraph: Islamic bigotry, In revealing that violent, intolerant prejudice continues to be preached, even by women, in centres of "moderate Islam." [181] ....

This is an article about the political movement Islamism, not the religion Islam! Your text is not written in wikipedia format and not encyclopedic. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your edit war, it's highly relative. This is about 'Islamic activism' AKA Political Islam, AKA Islamism. It's written in encylopedic form, though some improvement can help...

Not sure I follow your real "objection"? Is it that you prefer us to insert this valuable information in the Islam page?

If you want more info about Islamic bigotry, we can provide more.

AmAnisa (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. Edits must be based on consensus. AmAnisa was bold[1] (a good thing). BoogaLouie disagreed with the edits (meaning that no consensus existed) and so reverted the edits, requesting that the suggestions be posed on the talk page. That, as far as I can tell, is where we stand. AmAnisa, I have reverted your edits; please take your ideas to the talk page. Let's please avoid resorting to dispute resolution.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 02:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Presently, AmAnisa's section on bigotry remains.

I object to the section for three primary reasons:

1. It is not, to my knowledge, a significant component of Islamism, which is political Islam. BoogaLouie is correct; the section addresses bigotry used in conjunction with Islam, not any component of Islamism. The section never addresses Islamism, failing even to use the term. The second sub-section even begins by introducing "Islamic bigotry". Meanwhile, the section fails to assert any relationship between Islamism and bigotry coupled with Islam.

2. Your edit is entirely non-neutral and seems dedicated to painting Islamism in an overtly negative light. The quotations are entirely opinion, and your section uses neologisms such as "jihadi". It reads almost like a this-is-why-I-think-Islam-is-bad section. I see no statistics, no facts, and no opposing perspectives.

3. The citations are garbage. Editorials and random blogs do not constitute legitimate sources. Thanks to your edits, I now know who Mark Humphrey is, but his opinion on Islam is not relevant to an encyclopedic article on Islamism. Neither is Christopher Hitchens's. With the possible exception of #197, not a single source is credible; they're all blogs and editorials.

If you verify the relevance of bigotry in Islam to the Islamist movement using reliable secondary resources, I'll help add a section on bigotry. Until/unless an clear link is demonstrated by a legitimate source, I think it should be removed entirely.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the sources are not reliable. Also, I don't see the sources accusing Islamists directly (they make broad comments about Muslims and Arabs). Perhaps, with a lot of caution, this material can be moved to articles about the authors (to show what the author's opinions are of radical Islam, bigotry, racism, Arab-Israeli conflict etc).Bless sins (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good. Some of the referenced authors have WP entries already, including Mark Humphrey and Christopher Hitchens, so their ideas on Islam and Islamism can be added there. Also, perhaps some the content, if properly cited, could be added to Criticism of Islamism. The new section has certainly trespassed on POV territory and does not comply with WP:CITE.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 06:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I don't see anything with criticizing the undisputed bigotry in Islam, that user did not post it in Islam, which makes it even more moderate and less contentious. If someone has a problem with markhumphrey, still doesn't make it unreliable. why do the pro-Islamism keep on in the edit war while no consensus was reached?190.122.171.58 (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like consensus HAS been reached...see above. --Alan (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

AmAnisa has been blocked as a sock of User:Toothie3. It wouldnt surprise me if this IP were the same user. nableezy - 23:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. 190.122.171.58's very first edit[2] was re-adding the bigotry section, which happened immediately after AmAnisa's block. Its second edit[3] was this comment. Its third edit[4] was re-adding the bigotry section, again. Looks awfully suspicious.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Request - Pakistan movement

This article does mention even smaller movements, but fails to mention the Pakistan movement and the resultant blood-soaked partition of India. Without doubt, Pakistan movement is one of the most quintessential pieces of islamism in all of history. I am not used to this editing stuff, so i request editors to please see to this. 117.204.80.116 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Christianism, Islamism, Judaism

Hi, fine to use term like "Islamism" and "Christianism" to represent political movements within these religions, if we do the same also for "Judaism", Buddhism", "Hinduism" etc.

However, you will notice that for other religions, the suffix "-ism" in no way carries a political connotation but rather describes the lump sum of religious content within the religion. E.g. Judaism (V. 13.10.2010, 12:12) "Judaism is the "religion, philosophy, and way of life" of the Jewish people." And Buddhism: Buddhism is a religion and philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices, largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha (Pāli/Sanskrit "the awakened one").

By contrast Islamism: "Islamism is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system, and that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically." And "Christianism" as above.

Shouldn't we be more consistent in application of the suffix "-ism"? And preferably use it only to apply to a body of religious content, as opposed to political movements, to avoid confusion.

To be consistent I have also added this discussion to the "Christianism" page.

There is criticism i Islamism, and radical Islam, but no criticism in radical christianity, or christianism, Wikipedia is so racist and annoying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.110.121 (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

--Musa Emre (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Musa Emre - I see point. Potentially someone with a negative POV regarding Islam wrote this lead. What you really have to do though is find a variety of reliable sources on this issue and see how they define the word. NickCT (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see Islamism#History of usage for clarification. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The English language is not always logical or consistent (Why "rapist" and not "raper"? Is rape an ideology with theorists?) The issue is that there is an ideology of Islamism and it needs a word, even if the people professing the ideology do not like the use of that word. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've restored a short paragraph in the lead that was deleted that contains the sentence "Islamism is a controversial term and definitions of it sometimes vary." --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Contested word

The terms Islamist" and "Islamism" are problematical because: --They are almost entirely used by outside critics and are not accepted by their target. Therefore they are not neutral terms. --They have no agreed on definitions --They are most often used with progandistic intent. Note the fact there is no term "Christianist" in common usage even though there is a similar (though much smaller) movement among Christians. This nonparallelism partly reflects the fact that speakers who use the term "Islamist" are overwhelmingly from Christianized countries. We do need a term for politically mobilized fundamentalist Islamic ideology, and unfortunately there is no alternative term that is in wide use. At the very least this article needs a separate section pointing out how problematic these terms is. The section on "relation with Islam" touches on these issues but has the wrong header for such a discussion. Burressd (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read Islamism#History of usage, comment above and revised lead for clarification. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hizb ut-Tahrir

We need citations as to which cou ntires this group operates in.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Weasel tag

WP:Weasel tag was added in September 2010 but ther has been no specific discussion of what problem it refers to ... unless you include complaints above (Christianism, Islamism, Judaism and Contested Word) about the term Islamism itself and there not being an eqivalent article on Christianism in wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Islamic fanaticism

Typed in "islamic fanaticism" and got redirected here... WTF???? --Spmoura (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no article yet about the 'green corridor' (in the Balkans)

Those possibly interested could base themselves upon this article written by Srđa Trifković ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr%C4%91a_Trifkovi%C4%87 ) at http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/05/green-corridor-in-balkans.html .

I'll also put a link to this suggestion on the discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr%C4%91a_Trifkovi%C4%87 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.208.90.139 (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Dialectical Logic of Islamists

Dialectical Logic of Islamists (i.e., of the Lost):

Dialectical logic is found in the core of Eastern and Western thought. It is a common flaw to the human species. Although the various human cultures have developed their own methods of using this flaw, it is not simply a cultural defect. However, since each culture uses this flaw to to defend and to define itself, every attempt to correct the flaw is perceived to be an attack on the culture itself. Islamists are particularly sensitive to this perceived attack; because the dialectical Absolute of the Koran is found in the attempt to synthesize the Old and New Testaments (i.e., "the Book"). --FinalNotice (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Imam Khomeini.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Portrait of Imam Khomeini.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

updating needed

The article should include recent developments of the Arab Spring ... admittedly still in progress. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Does it really exist?

I found a text that questions the whole existence of islamism, saying that islam and islamism are actually the same thing.[5] I think that the source is not quite good enough, but once someone finds a better one, it could be included in the article as a criticism. A parallel: If someone heavily or even violently supports democracy, then is he a democraticist whose idea is democraticism, or is he simply a democrat? --Uikku (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Its as real as Christianism, i.e. no it doesn't really exist in any real sense. Yes people of the Islamic faith also form governments, and just like every other religion, their values system and moral framework influence their politics. Not that I think this article shouldn't be here. Wikipedia is all about hair thin distinctions and the separation of these isms comes from the secular crowd I think.Drunkenduncan (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

islamist is now a common and accepted designation for politically active religious Muslims

Islamism is a concocted term by various Orientalists, neo cons and Israelis. Islamists on the other hand which started out as a derogatory term has now changed and become normative for describing Islamic activists esp in Arab spring revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. This redirection to Islamism should be stopped and islamist should have its own page along with links to the islamic activists and movements involved in the Arab spring revolutions. For example islamist.com seems to be a pro islamist news web site (http://www.islamist.com/index.phphttp://www.islamist.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholetruth123 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

we have to have a reliable source WP:RS saying the term was "concocted by various Orientalists, neo cons and Israelis". The article does state that Islamism is a "controversial term", and it deals with the controversy:

The concept Islamism is controversial, not just because it posits a political role for Islam, but also because its supporters believe their views merely reflect Islam, while the contrary idea that Islam is, or can be, apolitical is an error. Scholars and observers who do not believe that Islam is a political ideology include Fred Halliday, John Esposito and Muslim intellectuals like Javed Ahmad Ghamidi.

Islamists have asked the question, "If Islam is a way of life, how can we say that those who want to live by its principles in legal, social, political, economic, and political spheres of life are not Muslims, but Islamists and believe in Islamism, not [just] Islam?" Similarly, a writer for the International Crisis Group maintains that "the conception of 'political Islam'" is a creation of Americans to explain the Iranian Islamic Revolution. In reality, apolitical Islam was an historical fluke of the "shortlived heyday of secular Arab nationalism between 1945 and 1970," and it is quietist/non-political Islam, not Islamism, that requires explanation.

On the other hand, Muslim-owned and run media (not just Western media) have used the terms "Islamist" and "Islamism" — as distinguished from Muslim and Islam — to distinguish groups such as the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria or Jamaa Islamiya in Egypt, which actively seek to implement Islamic law, from mainstream Muslim groups.

Another source distinguishes Islamist from Islamic "by the fact that the latter refers to a religion and culture in existence over a millennium, whereas the first is a political/religious phenomenon linked to the great events of the 20th century". Islamists have, at least at times, defined themselves as "Islamiyyoun/Islamists" to differentiate themselves from "Muslimun/Muslims".

--BoogaLouie (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I see many references in Islamic movements news and some literature referring to themselves as Islamist. I see none refer to their thinking as Islamism. Booga I checked all your references above except Abidullah Jan which the link was not working. The only mention of Islamism was in the International crisis group which is yet another neo con hydra and is not an Islamist or Muslim site. Booga, please clarify your terms and distinguish between the usage of Islamist and Islamism. Do not be evasive in referring to both while the citation only refers to Islamist. Booga could you give us some citations of Islamic movements referring to Islamism as an ideology?.

As a quick search for Islamist on Ikhwanweb.com via google generates 97,600 hits with numerous references in self descriptions of Islamic political parties identifying themselves as Islamist. Why Islamists Are Better Democrats - Ikhwanweb or Tunisia's Islamist Nahda Wins Impressive Landslide Victory

The term Islamist and Islamism are distinct and different. Islamist is how Islamic political movements describe themselves while Islamism is a term used primarily by their detractors. Therefore The wiki entry for Islamist should not be redirected to Islamism. Free speech and free debate should prevail.

Wholetruth123 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

islamist should not be redirected to islamism

@shadihamid Shadi Hamid I don't get why ppl have such a problem w- the word "Islamist." That's what (most) Islamists call themselves. There's no btr alternative.

Director of Research at the Brookings Doha Center & Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Shamid [at] Brookings.edu. Http://www.brookings.edu/experts/hamids.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.161.171 (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

English is a very hard language for non-native speakers. I will try to explain.

• Islamism is a noun for describing an abstract political concept - like national socialism or communism. Nobody would stand up and say, "I am a communism!", though they might say, "I am a communist."
• Islamist is both a noun and an adjective.

• As an adjective, it is correct to refer to islamist beliefs ("Islamist" being the adjective, and "Beliefs" the noun). There are also adjectives "national socialist" and "communist".
• As a noun, it refers to people. Someone can be a communist, or a national socialist, or an islamist. It is wrong, to use this noun to refer to an abstract political concept.

--Toddy1 (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Toddy, Thank you kindly for your lecture on basic English. I am a native speaker having grown up in Michigan. Kindly avoid such insulting comments. The term Islamism is a concoction used typically by various neo con think tank types along with various Orientalists. Islamist are Muslims who are active in the political arena. There is no such thing as Islamism as far as the Muslims are concerned. It is is simply Islam which encompasses both personal religious observations and societal obligations to establish equity and Justice (Islamic term ::Adl).

The redirect of Islamists to Islamism is similar to redirecting African Americans to nigger. It is highly biased and insulting. Complete depiction of the entire movement of political Islam (Islamist) using a term derived from their opposition (Islamism) is very biased and unbalanced.

Wholetruth123 (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. I had seen some of your comments and deleted contributions, and assumed that you were probably a Palestinian, for whom English was a foreign language, making edits in good faith. I see now that I was entirely wrong in my assumptions about you. Please accept my apologies.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Toddy, appreciate the kind word. I am trying in all good faith to get this redirect of Islamist to Islamism stopped and have an independent page for Islamist where it can cover some of the movements involved in the Arab spring revolutions. I strongly feel that many wiki readers would benefit from a frank look at the workings of Islamist parties in the middle east with both pro and con viewpoints clearly elucidated. The Islamism entry can stay and the debate on Islamism can stay as it is.

Which editor or editors can undo the redirect?

Wholetruth123 (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a pattern:

• Communist redirects to communism.
• Marxist redirects to Marxism.
• Socialist redirects to socialism.
• National socialist redirects to Nazism.
• Conservative redirects to conservatism.
• Capitalist redirects to capitalism.
• Islamist redirects to Islamism.

--Toddy1 (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So following your logic stupid should be redirected to stupidism?

Islamism is not an ism. On the other hand there are clearly people who are Islamists. Islamist generally describes politically active people following the Islamic faith. Islamism is like the term Mohammedanism which was constructed by 19th century orientalists looking to justify European colonial rules and policies. Islamism is a construct of the same modern day Orientalists as the old Imperial orientalists who coined the term Mohammedanism

Another way to explain it is to redirect Christ to Christism. Christism is an artificial construct and no Christians refer to themselves as following Christism. WT Wholetruth123 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC) And the N word simply means black. Same way a sombrero means a hat? The term Islamist is derogatory for Muslims. We don't like it. You cannot seperate the Rules of the Shariah from the lives on a Muslim. Granted that there are some Muslims that do not adhere to it totally but that does not mean that those who do are now "Islamists". It just means they are more practicing Muslims. I'm surprised this hasn't caused more of a stir yet. BrYounus (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This statement "In reality, apolitical Islam was an historical fluke of the "shortlived heyday of secular Arab nationalism between 1945 and 1970," and it is quietist/non-political Islam, not Islamism, that requires explanation" has no place in a Wikipedia article. Please remove it or provide evidence of the said condition. (A reference is not evidence.) SirteP (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Misleading title.

Islam by nature is political so why the need for Islamism title. Giftanodegiftanode (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is the portrait of Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani a file called "HypnoDude.jpg"

It looks like someone was messing around in photoshop and decided to make this guy trippy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flobee (talk • contribs) 04:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Problems and proposed move(s)

As many talk page commenters have pointed out, "Islamism" is a poorly-constructed category applied by outsiders with an ax to grind. The article itself needs major changes—for example, "history" comes quite late, after SNYTH-y seeming sections like "Relation with Islam".

How about focusing this article on the term "Islamism" and those who have created and used this term? The content related to political Islam could be moved to an article called "Political Islam" or merged with "Political aspects of Islam". At bare minimum, "political Islam" should redirect to the latter page. If you compare searches on Google Scholar, you will see how these terms are typically used in the scholarly literature—"Islamism" is used more often to describe European and European–American conceptions of political Islam.

Peace, groupuscule (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just jumping in quickly Islamism is a modern neologism , and that should be in the lead, there is no historical reference to it. While the thing that Islamism is trying to describe is an integral part of the Islamic religion. Hence from the POV of some it is like saying there is Islam and then there is the Hajj, and people who follow Hajj are called Hajjist. (if you see my point). Whatever -- I think it should be merged with Political Islam. Or explicitly stated (if not in the lead already that it is a Western look at the "other"/--Inayity (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Separation of religion and state is a modern concept, so historically there was no need to label those who rejected the idea. For Islam, the issue didn't even arise until Ataturk's reforms in the 1920s. Kauffner (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a subject of study and therefore should be treated like any other ideology. See for example the number of books on the subject by serious writers.[6] Of course its adherents do not call themselves Islamists and popular media misuse the term. However the same applies to many other terms used to describe extreme political positions. TFD (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Islamism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islamism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "allamaiqbal.com":

• From Muhammad Iqbal: "Allama Iqbal – Biography" (PHP). 26 May 2006. Retrieved 2011-01-07. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
• From Pakistan: Iqbal Academy (26 May 2006). "Allama Iqbal – Biography" (PHP). Retrieved 7 January 2011.

Reference named "books.google.co.uk":

• From Democracy: Flyvbjerg, Bent, 2001, Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again (Cambridge University Press), p. 154.
• From Muhammad Iqbal: Schimmel, Annemarie (1962). Gabriel's wing: a study into the religious ideas of Sir Muhammad Iqbal. Brill Archive. pp. 34–45.
• From Abu Bakr: Atlas of the Prophet's biography: places, nations, landmarks, By Shawqī Abū Khalīl, Pg205

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits by ahmed

Deletion of citations

Why did you delete these citations without even an edit summary?? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"theodemocracy"

Edits by Ahmed 313-326 have, among other things, eliminated the term "theodemocracy" that Maududi used. There is plenty of evidence this concept was important to his ideas (see here) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Modudi never talked about "theodemocracy". In "Khilafet o mlookiat" he has condemned the whole idea of distinct institution of clergy in Islam. he was simply a Islamist democrat" not a "theodemocrat". --Ahmed 313-326 (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC) [pasted from Ahmed talk page]

Do you have any evidence "Modudi never talked about 'theodemocracy'"? Why do numerous authors say he did talk about "theodemocracy"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

it is a matter of meaning and understanding of word "theodemocracy". --Ahmed 313-326 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I imagine it is, but you are not arbiter of it. If we have numerous authors saying he used the term and/or using the term in explaining his ideas there is no reason to delete the term. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw this dispute listed at Third Opinion. This is not a third opinion, but just a question for Ahmed 313-326 with the hope that the matter may be made clearer for me or for someone else to give a third opinion. As BoogaLouie says, several of the citations connect the term to Modudi, and at least a couple of them directly attribute it to him, saying that he invented the term. Chasing down the footnotes in some of them, it appears that Modudi used the term in his book, The Islamic Law and Constitution. Ahmed, I'm afraid that I don't understand what you mean in your comments, above. It's not clear whether you mean that he didn't use the term — "Modudi never talked about 'theodemocracy'" — or whether you mean that he did use it, but his use of it is being misunderstood or misused — "it is a matter of meaning and understanding of word 'theodemocracy'". Could you clarify your position, please? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Although Google books provides only a snippet view of the article by Maududi, he uses the term "theo-democracy" (his quotes).[7] He appears not to have realized that the term was originally coined by Mormons. TFD (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

another unexplained deletion

While editors have been waiting for Ahmed to reply, he's gone and made another deletion (I should have caught before) here deleting a sourced sentence
It has been said of Sirhindi that he 'gave to Indian Islam the rigid and conservative stamp it bears today.'
.. and making no edit summary to explain why. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Take the quotations out the lead

There is no point to the quotations in the lead [of wikipedia], which have in brackets [to clarify the point]. If there is a ref, you can just state the points without the quotes. --Inayity (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

Should edits deleting the word "theodemocracy" -- describing the ideas of famed Islamist writer Abul A'la Maududi -- and deleting some other citations (with no edit summary) be allowed to stand.

As explained above, Mawdudi and numerous authors have used the word "theodemocracy" to describe his ideas.

History of issue

• Have brought the issue up on the talk page (see above). did not get much of response from the editor (User:Ahmed_313-326)
• Listed dispute at Third Opinion (april 21 or 22).
• A couple of people responded, one asking ahmed a question (april 22)
• Left notices on ahmed's talk page
• Ahmed did not respond again on the talk page but in the mean time made another edit deleting a sourced sentence (april 24, see above) and not giving an edit summary
• Posted the problem on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, ahmed was notified. No reply from him. Notice closed "Inactivity of Ahmed 313-326"
• ChrisGualtieri, who closed the dispute resolution case for lack of reply from ahmed, suggested I try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct but I wasn't sure it would qualify as it appears I am the only user whose clashed with ahmed in this particular issue.
• Since then Ahmed has been active and has gotten an edit warring notice
  --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• one other thing, one of ahmed's edits was reverted by User Doc Tropics May 13. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Responses

• Restore deleted edits (for reasons given above). --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Restore the content is verified to a source. If the individual wishes to dispute whether the source is an RS, they can begin a discussion at WP:RSN. If it is found to be reliable, keep the content; if it is not, remove the content or find an RS to verify the content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Restore I commented on this matter above. An editor claims that Maududi never used the term. But a snippet taken from an article by him shows that he did, although he placed it in quotes.[8] He does not appear to know that the Mormons had earlier used this term (why would he?) so we should not imply that he was using it in the same sense, unless sources say he was. TFD (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Restore with note - The term 'Theodemocracy' is a bit of a neologism, specifically attribute it to Abul A'la Mawdudi's writings and cite it with two notes, or even expand a full footnote to list the neologism as receiving considerable comment from third parties and identifying the idea as such. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Restore, though it doesn't really matter at this point, as consensus seems to have been reached. I do want to add that I thoroughly reviewed the RfC and details, though, and agree with the above opinions on the matter, in particular those of RightCowLeftCoast and TFD. No comment on ChrisGualtieri's note, as it isn't part of this RfC, but it is an interesting comment that's worth delving into . --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My comment is part of this RFC. Even a simple Google search shows the term being used and referenced back to Maududi/Mawdudi numerous times. I just wanted to make clear that because it isn't in a dictionary and their is an active dispute, citing it is a requirement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if my comments were interpreted to be an attack on your position. I viewed the issue as a separate (but still important) issue, but I see your point. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Restore. Seems legit to me. I agree with taking the issue to RSN, if there's a dispute over the source. Otherwise, it should stand. As a neologism, it should probably make an explicit statement of its notability, to prevent further misunderstandings from zealous editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

“Turkey - strong Islamist tradition” is this a WP:NPOV?

Since the time of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and the huge influence of Kemalist ideology on the formation of the Turkish Republic, Turkey has been widely considered the most secular majority-Muslim government in the middle east, and the government least influenced by Islamists. Reading this article, it appears to imply the exact opposite. -- Thebuscamebyandigoton (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Compare with Communist Poland - it had a secular government but a religious population. TFD (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

True, but I thought the definition of "Islamist" in this article was a Muslim who wants government to play some religious roles rather than having a purely secular government (as in Turkey). So I would think we should consider the majority of Turkey's population as devout practitioners of Islam but not Islamists. -- Thebuscamebyandigoton (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What does the role that the government played have to do with what role citizens thought it should play? TFD (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The voters of Turkey have voted to maintain the most secular and least Islamist majority-Muslim government in the middle east for about a hundred years. This is not consistent with the section's claim that Turkey has a strong Islamist tradition, therefore I don't think it is written from a NPOV. -- Thebuscamebyandigoton (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

And the voters of Poland voted to maintain one of the most secular and least Christian majority governments in Europe for about fifty years. TFD (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If there was a article that said "Poland has a strong Christianist tradition", then I think the NPOV of that article should be questioned as well. You get that many devout Christians are not Christianists, and many devout practitioners of Islam are not Islamists, right? -Thebuscamebyandigoton (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

We should ask what makes it "strong"? I suggest removing this. Liesbeth98 (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Copying the following from WP:Christianism for clarification -Thebuscamebyandigoton (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Christianism had various definitions over the years. It was originally defined as "the Christian religion" or "the Christian world", with cognates in languages like Spanish (cristianismo) or French (christianisme) retaining this meaning. In recent years, Christianism (or Christianist) has also been used as a descriptive term of Christian fundamentalists, mostly in the United States, for the ideology of the Christian right, meant as a counterpoint to "Islamism". Writing in 2005, the New York Times language columnist William Safire attributed the term (in its modern usage) to conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, who wrote on June 1, 2003 :

I have a new term for those on the fringes of the religious right who have used the Gospels to perpetuate their own aspirations for power, control and oppression: Christianists. They are as anathema to true Christians as the Islamists are to true Islam.

The liberal bloggers Tristero and David Neiwert used the term shortly after. Sullivan later expanded on his usage of the term in a Time magazine column. Uses of the term can be found dating back to the seventeenth century, but these are unrelated to its modern meaning.

There is no Christian equivalent of Islamism. The Christian Right for example do not plan to eliminate the U.S. federal, state and municipal governments, laws, borders, and citizenship. For example, to them Mexicans are foreigners, not "Christians" with the right to live and work anywhere within Christendom. TFD (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Whither political Islam? (Lihaas (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)).

Excuse me

A Word About tide, discussants think unclear, indistinct, not prezies. That's why print with long sentences, kompleziert, little understood. Or, do it to blur the issue, do not talk interesting. Show Psy - Simptomen / Sorry /.1-CVH-420Peg (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Counter-response

I have flagged the "Counter-response" section as "dubious" insofar as it appears to confuse "Islamism" with "terrorism."* In my research, there is no indication that the USG has explicitly (or even implicitly) engaged in efforts to undermine political expressions of Islam (Islamism). The section was a bit too post hoc ergo proper hoc for Wikipedia. To be clear, the USG does does seek to counter violent terrorist who profess a faith in Islam; it does not seek to counter Islamists or Islamism. The section does mentions "violent Islamists," which is closer to reality, but the USG is still explicitly oriented toward "terrorism." It is below the usual standard of Wikipedia to conflate Islamism and terrorism without a koch deeper discussion than what is included here.

• This also appears to have hidden the section, which was not my intent, but I am not savvy enough to know how to flag a section as questionable without hiding it entirely. I welcome changes by Wikipedia gurus that displays the section but notes my critique.