Talk:Islamism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)


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)


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 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 <>;

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 <>;

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:
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.
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:
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:
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:
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
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)


It's not my theory it was put forward by Gilles Kepel, one of the world's foremost experts on the subject. The theory is still controversial and not universally accepted, but it is still important to mention it. His evidence in Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam for Saddam's using Islam to challenge the Saudi is:

  • Saddam adopted the Iranian rhetoric and began calling Saudi Arabia "an American protectorate unworthy of guarding the Holy Places" (206)
  • Saddam detached the Muslim Bortherhood and other leading clerics from the Popular Islamic Conference (208)
  • The phrase Allaj Akbar was added to the Iraqi flag (208)
  • Saddam's propagande machine put great prominence on a scene of him praying on the shore of the newly conquered Kuwait City (208)
  • He got the OIC to aknowledge Iraq's grievances as legitimate (210)
  • In January 1991 Saddam set up a rival PIC based in Baghdad, this PIC called for a jihad against the west and ruled that the presence of foreign troops in Saudi Arabia was a sacriledge. (210)

-SimonP 17:18, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Is praying the same thing as "Islamism"? Is Gilles Kepel claiming that any Muslims who prays is an "Islamist"? The word "Islamist" is used to describe a political movement of people who want to impose Shar'a law. The cited example above has nothing to do with being "Islamist," unless you consider all religious Muslims to be also "Islamists" OneGuy 00:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Saddam embraced Islamic rhetoric and trappings and made nods towards conservatives by doing things like banning liquor - this is entirely different from saying he is an Islamist, which he is decidedly not. What Saddam does for propaganda does not in any way imply that he was interested in creating a state based on the Qu'ran. If you have some substantive evidence to support this thesis, then I'd be in favor of putting it back in. But beyond mere cosmetics, mere rhetoric, there's nothing of substance that Saddam did that could be construed as Islamist (e.g. observe the status of women and non-Muslims in his government). As it is, you've put in a -huge- section on this subject (and removed some other material as well). A "controversial" and "not universally accepted" theory does not deserve the extensive attention it is being given right now. Graft 20:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that Kepel's view isn't central to the discussion of modern Islamism? Or do you just dislike his theory? Feel free to flesh out the alternative theories, but we are not allowed to censor important opinions because we disagree with them. - SimonP 23:37, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
But the article declares the claim about Saddam a fact instead of citing the claim as a disputed theory by Gilles Kepel. That's not NPOV OneGuy 23:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have made the attributions clearer. - SimonP 01:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, why is this an "important opinion"? The overwhelming majority of people characterize Saddam's regime as relentlessly secular. Saying he's an Islamist is definitely a controversial, minority opinion. Graft 04:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The passage nowhere claims that Saddam was an Islamist. It only states that he courted the Islamist movement around the time of the First Gulf War. This claim is uncontroversial and I have never read a work that has rejected it. - SimonP 05:34, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
He courted the general Muslim public by appealing to religion, just like any other politician (including Bill Clinton) does. That's not the same as "courting Islamist movement." This is the second time that you implied that any religious connection relating to Islam -- even prayer as you claimed above -- equals "Islamist" movement OneGuy 06:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
None of us have the expertise to assess the merits of Kepel's argument, and doing so would be original research. Our task is to present the current historiography, including all the major theories and arguments. The question we can ask is whether Kepel's theory is important enough to be encyclopedic. Seeing as he one of the world's foremost, if not the foremost, scholars of Islamism I consider it notable. You may think it is hokum, but Kepel is widely respected. - SimonP 07:19, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Since I haven't read Gilles Kepel, I won't comment on what exactly he wrote. Can you cite the exact reference so we can check what exactly he wrote? If Gilles Kepel really did say that Saddam courting to general Muslim public by appealing to religion is same as supporting "Islamism," then as far as I am concerned, the guy has zero credibility. But before I reach that conclusion, I will like to see what exactly he wrote OneGuy 07:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See Jihad: On the Trail of Political Islam (Harvard University Press, 2002), specifically pages 205-11 of Chapter 9, "From the Gulf War to the Taliban Jihad". I believe parts of The War for Muslim Minds also discusses the issue, but the first is where he originally advanced the argument. - SimonP 08:40, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)


Some anon user put this in Islam Jihad Movement section. Reverted and put comment here. SYSS Mouse 02:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but... Corection: Despite the similarity in the name, there is no [proof of any] relationship between the palestinian Islamic jihad and the mentioned Egyptian movement (which has drastically reformed its viewes recently).

"similar to Zionism"

I removed the assertion that Islamism is similar to Zionism because, well, it's not. Zionism is a form (religious and/or ethnic) of nationalism; how is that similar to what is discussed here? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, they both end in "ism". ;-) Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Mirv, your claim that Islamism is not similar to Zionism is in fact incorrect. Since Jews are hardly an ethnic group anymore than Muslims are an ethnic group and it is considered as Anti-Jewish to refer to them as an ethnic group and typical of Muslims to do so, in order to denounce Jewish rights to the land of Israel. BTW, I would like to point to you that the Wikipedia entry on Zionism contains some inaccuracies that should be fixed and you are invited to discuss on the Usenet newsgroup, soc.culture.jewish.moderated and ask the participants there whether or not Jew is an ethnic group? The Jews there will tell you plainly that Jews are a people and not an ethnic group, nor a race. Jews are the people who adhere by Judaism.
While Judaism is a religion and not a political ideology, Zionism itself is political Judaism, just as Islamism is political Islam. I hope you can understand what I am trying to say. Now, even if your claim that Zionism is a form of religious and ethnic nationalism, we can say Islamism can be considered a religious nationalism too. Nationalism can be religious, as much as ethnic, or racial.
So, I request you to kindly not revert my ammendments as they are factual.
--Garywbush 15:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Jews are indeed an ethnic group/people; read Jew. As for political Zionism, it was an anti-religious nationalist movement. Please read the Zionism article carefully as well, and refrain from putting this false comparison into this article. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
It might be illuminating to compare the more religious flavors of Zionism, e.g. the Mizrachi and its intellectual heirs, with various Islamist ideologies—but not here: an article on religious nationalism would be the place for that. (It might cover Dominionism as well). It might also be fruitful to explore Islamism-as-a-form-of-nationalism, if that comparison exists in the literature. However, a flat statement that "Islamism is similar to Zionism" has no place in the introduction of this article: both terms encompass a very broad range of ideologies, and the central tenets of the two have very little in common. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Islamism different from Islam

The article itself states "Muhammad, who himself was the first Islamist". So really how different is "Islamism" from Islam? If the founder of Islam is an Islamist, how is the entire Islam, not Islamism? Islam isn't some branch that started in 1738. Islam has been and always will be a religious AND political ideology. Therefore this whole page should be moved to the Islam page.

I removed your addition because it has a number of problems. You can't assert that "some say" something. Who says this? Be specific and avoid weasel words. Also the statement that "it can be logically seen, that there is no difference between Islam and Islamism" is highly POV. Politics refers to any relationship between human beings, so saying that Islam, or any other religion, is political is correct. However, the meaning of the word political in the phrase "political Islam" is far more specific than this a not all Islam is thus "political Islam" or Islamism. Please read the article. In modern circles Islamism has a very specfic meaning, it is not "all Islam." - SimonP 14:43, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Noted on the 'weasel words' and 'logically seen', but my original point remains fast. Politics is "the art or science of government" according to the Webster dictionary. Chrisitanity, for example, does not teach how to govern, but only how respect God and to treat others. It is entirely separate from politics. Whether modern day Christians have tried to create a political faction (for example, the Moral Majority), but it was never begun as such. However, Islam is not just a religion, but a political way of life. If the FOUNDER of Islam was an "Islamist" then isn't "Islamism" just a function of Islam? Using two separate terms is just semantics. There is more logic to having a term "Christianism" than there is to having a term "Islamism." While I don't suggest completely removing the entry, there has to be some note to distinquish that the difference in two terms, Islam and Islamism isn't generally accepted knowledge. AU Jun 10
  • It seems like "islamism" is sort of secular, the political or quasi-ethnic side as opposed to the spiritual side (and yes I realize the distinction can get blurry sometimes). Bear in mind separation of church and state was an innovation in the West only 300 years ago. If that's the meaning a nice simple statement underlining it would help. Note: there was a vaguely similar distinction (not made so much anymore) between Christianity, the religion, and Christiandom, the countries with Christian governments. Peter Grey 8 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)
    • "It seems like "islamism" is sort of secular ..."
      • This is absolutely false. "Islamism," as you call it, is a theocractic ideology - the exact ideological opposite of secularism. Does "Islamism" enroach upon the domain of private and public secular life? Yes, it does, just like any other theocratic ideology. Does that mean theocracy is secular? No, it does not.
    • ""islamism" is ... the political ... side as opposed to the spiritual side"
      • We all understand that Islam is both a monotheistic religion and a theocratic political ideology. But that doesn't mean that the political aspects of Islam are somehow seperate from Islam.
    • ""islamism" is ... the quasi-ethnic ... side as opposed to the spiritual side"
      • What you mean by "quasi-ethnic" is anyone's guess. Perhaps you should explain what you mean.
    • "Bear in mind separation of church and state was an innovation in the West only 300 years ago."
      • That is absolutely false. Christianity did not start out with Jesus founding a theocraitc state, raising an army, and conquering Syria-Palestine (which was under the control of the Roman Empire). According to its doctrine, Christianity's founder was tortured to death by the Roman Empire, and his followers became a small and persecuted group living in the backwaters of the vast Roman Empire. In other words, Christianity BEGAN with "the Church" being seperate from the state. It was only three-hundred years after the founding of Christianity that the Roman Empire allowed the religion to be freely practiced by Emperor of Rome Constantine the Great. The founder of Islam, on the other hand, was not tortured to death by the state. In fact, there WAS no state in the Arabanian peninsula when Muhammad began his career as a prophet. Muhammad founded a small state in Medina based on the Qur'an, where he raised an army, and rapidly expanded the Islamic state until Muhammad had the entire Arabanian peninsula under his control. You are quite wrong is saying that the seperation of Church and state only started 300 years ago, when in fact Christianity was persecuted for 300 years, after being founded and havings its founder executed. That Constantine the Great treated the Christians mercifully during his rule does not mean that Constantine allowed the Church to control the state (he clearly didn't). Indeed, "the reputation of Constantine the Great as the "first Christian Emperor" was promulgated by the early Christian authors Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea, gaining ground in the succeeding generations." It was only in 380 AD that Emperor Theodosius I declared Christianity to be the state religion of the Roman Empire. Thus between the years 1 and 380 (of the Christian calander), the Church was seperate from the state, and in fact Christianity was persected religion between the Christian years 1 and 313, when Constantine the Great decreed the Edict of Milan declaring the Roman Empire neutral towards religious views. Compare to Islam. In the Islamic calander, the year 1 corresponds to the start of the Islamic state, when Muhammad and his followers migrated to Medina where Muhammad was made the governor of the people. Thus, in Islam, the mosque and the state have been one and the same since the year 1. In fact, Muhammad established a mosque in the home of A'isha (one of his wives), and it was also the center of his political activities. The home of A'isha later became the grand mosque of Medina, the second holiest mosque in Islam. By the Islamic year 10, Muhammad had brought the entire Arabanian peninsula under the rule of his Islamic state. By the Islamic year 380, the Islamic state streched from the westmost regions of India to the southmost regions of France, encompassing half of France, and all of Spain, North Africa, Persia, Arabia, etc.! Note that the year 380, in the Christian calander, corresponds to the year in which Emperor Theodosius I declared Christianity to be the state religion of the Roman Empire, marking the first fusion of Church and state in the history of the Church. --Zeno of Elea 23:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Can we remove this Gilles Kepel junk? I hate it. Unless someone else makes the same assertion, I find no justification for keeping an iconoclastic and frankly ridiculous claim like the one made in the article, especially in such great detail. Graft 15:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • It happens to be one of the major, if not the most important, theories among the scholarly community at the moment. I think we need more than your personal dislike to remove it. Have you checked the references I provided several months ago? Reading the material in question would be a good idea before rejecting it as "junk." What should be done is that the theories of, Lewis, Esposito, Enayat, Huntington and other major thinkers in this area should be added. The bit on Keppel should also be expanded. The thing he is best known for, and his most controversial assertion is that Islamism has already crested. - SimonP 16:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, Gilles Kepel is among the most important academic theorists on this subject - and, frankly, he's right on target. Consider the key role that the Gulf War played in catalyzing the Algerian Civil War, for example. - Mustafaa 18:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understand that Gilles Kepel is an important academic theorist. What I'm disputing is the fact that Saddam is being discussed as if he were an Islamist. If this is not the contention being made, I apologize, but submit that the passage is unclear, and I don't see the need to discuss Saddam's rather minor positive role in advancing Islamism at such length. It smacks of American attempts to paint all their enemies as one kit and kaboodle. I'd be greatly surprised if Prof. Kepel espoused such a view. Graft 20:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point. The Gulf War was crucially important in advancing Islamism, but Saddam himself was far less so. - Mustafaa 22:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Graft, Saddam changed his flag to add the words Allah Akbar as a symbol of unity with the Jihadist Islamists. He was all show but he was still a firm opponent of the US and the West and was using the Islamists as a weapon. It was more like a Nazi/Stalin pact. - Anon

Nuttall and Islamism

The Nuttall Encyclopedia says Islam or Islamism, the religion of Mahomet, "that we must submit to God; that our whole strength lies in resigned submission to Him, whatsoever He do to us, for this world and the other; this is the soul of Islam; it is properly the soul of Christianity; Christianity also commands us, before all, to be resigned to God. This is yet the highest wisdom that Heaven has revealed to our earth." See "Heroes and Hero-Worship." - This is just interesting because it equates Islamism as equalling Islam and is an old source. gren 07:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Early 20th century usage of the world "Islamism" obviously may have nothing to do with the modern term. Specially since it's using "Mahomet" instead of more modern transliterations. Graft 16:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, it may not. However, that doesn't mean it isn't part of etymology or worthy of mention in considering how the modern usage came to be. Which was precisely my point. gren 23:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamism and history

Regarding my recent reversion: whether or not Islam has, in the past, been a political ideology, modern Islamism is a separate trend, especially BECAUSE it is a modern reaction, and not the same historical trend. To argue otherwise is akin to suggesting that because Christian Dominionists want to create a theocratic Christian state, the Holy Roman Empire (or any Christian kingdom) was Dominionist. Plainly wrong. Graft 18:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Err, regarding that other edit I made where I deleted stuff about Khilafa and Hizb ut Tahrir:

  1. The Khilafa stuff can obviously have a place in the article, since it's clearly important to many Islamist groups. However, as written I find it ahistorical since it implies continuity of ideology where none exists.
  2. Regarding Wahhabism, I removed some lines that suggested the relationship between the House of Saud and ibn Abd al-Wahhab was merely one of convenience. Possibly true, but editorializing anyway and thus inappropriate. The remaining text is suggestive enough anyway; the reader can draw her own conclusions without needing to be led by the nose.
  3. Regarding Hizb-ut-Tahrir - I'm not convinced they're of enough singular importance to deserve special mention. I get that they're a widespread group, and this is fine to mention them somewhere, but I don't think they're a philosophically influential group in the same way as the others listed. If someone can show me otherwise, that would be great.

Graft 19:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Islamism and Fascism

It's good that you created this. I think you should remove, "Islamism has been compared to fascism, while others deny this comparison" because there is a section below and that little "some believe, some don't" is worthless. You have your section where hopefully it can be fully explained but that sentence you have there does nothing but passive voice "some have compared" and others deny... which is not passive voice but is just as vague. Mussolini is Fascism, Islamism is compared to fascism the concept. I have compared Qutb and fascism as I said in political science but... you are still going to need to provide some sources... not just your perception of this issue. Because, Islamism has different versions. So, let's keep that in minde. gren グレン 20:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Gren, I accept your argument, which is correct. Rest assured, I will add as much as possible resources. As this probably will involve more than 50 citations, it will take some time and I welcome your help in both approving and disproving the similarity between islamism and fascism.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 20:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Here I am agreeing with you and hoping that we can create a decent comparison between Islamism and fascism which is often used as a critique of Islamism and you write a horribly POV generalizing paragraph of, it not utter nonesense, then a whole boatload of it. You do not list every aspect of fascism and then try to compare what you see as Islamism to it. Islamism is not shown next to 1930s Italy as the same. There are aspects like different rules for the ummah which Qutb and others talk about which ring of fascism but you... man, cite decent sources before you add stuff like that to this article. gren グレン 20:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Allright, I agree in that we have to find a notable definition of fascism which is applicable. May be this one isn't. I took this definition from the Wikipedia Fascism article, Definition section, if you have a better definition in generality and notability, you are most welcome to add it. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 20:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Islamism is not compared to fascism in its totality, there are aspects... so, there is no need to list everything. Citing Bukhari or hadith collections is also not citing Islamist theory, you must cite what they say. Citing primary sources and interpretting them is original research. Hadith collections were often not given to the public because it was believed that only an Islamic scholar / fiqah could interpret them because it was needed to understand them in their totality so you quoting hadith as justification will not do. There will most definitely need to be a citation of Qutb and criticisms of Qutb which I'm sure exist. We must also remember this is little 'f' fascism. gren グレン 21:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and second to a good (university) library will be your best friend here. A World Without Meaning: The Crisis of Meaning in International Politics by Jeanne Cavelos, Zaki Laidi has some discussion of Islamism compared to fascism and communism. I suggested after SimonP's removal of the section that it might become "Islamism and political theory" which... it surely has comparison to more than just fascism and fascism surely could have a section. Usually that is how it is discussed (as far as I can tell) in sources. gren グレン 21:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Understanding the City (p 308) edited by John Eade, Christopher Mele also has a small discussion about how Islamism, despite being compared to fascism differs... gren グレン 21:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this valuable references Gren. Not for the first time I am pleased by your constructive and intelligent approach.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 14:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have removed this section again. I am not an expert on the subject, but I know enough to know that the current content is crap. For instance one comparison in this section is that like fascism Islamism has policies that "affect the economy," which is a vague enough statement to be totally useless. It also totally misunderstands the concepts of the ummah. Firstly it ignores that Islamists like Khomeini and the SCIRI place the ulema above the ummah. It also ignores that a large body of Islamist thinkers like al-Sistani and al-Dawa views the supremacy of the ummah as an argument for democracy. Even among pro-Caliphate Islamists the supremacy of the ummah is not an attack on individualism, only on nation states. Qutb's views on the ummah were far more influenced by Marxist-Leninism, arguing that the Caliphate would only be recreated by a revolt by the oppressed peoples of the Muslim world, a revolt led by a "vanguard of the proletariat" like group of religious elite. Similarly with communism Qutb felt that once the new ummah was established a world of peace and equality would prevail. All utterly unlike fascism. Essentially the only accurate comparison is that they are both authoritarian and violent, but these characteristics are shared by almost all ideologies. - SimonP 22:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Simon, as usual, you removed the section for invalid reasons.

Your reasons can be summarized as:

    1. The current content is "crap".
      1. It "totally misunderstands the concept of Ummah".
      2. Opinions differ among islamist authors.
    2. There are insufficient reasons to equate islamism wioth fascism.
Regarding the first point, a poor quality of a section should not be a reason to remove it, but rather be an impetus to rewrite it in a more brilliant manner, e.g. by you. Many parts of Wikipedia are written poorly and not-well sourced. Fortunately most Wikipedians have a more constructive approach to this issue than you, which results in a net growth of informational content and quality of Wikipedia.
  • Regarding the subsections of the first point: Khomeini as well as other islamists see the ulema as the natural leaders of the ummah, which makes your contradiction a fake contradiction. Of course, as a result the opinion of the ulema will be more important than the opinion of the ummah because this way the interest of the ummah will be served best. Khomeini agrees in that the interests of the whole supersede the interests of the individual. The section defines ummah as the community of Muslims, not as a authoritative body. According to islamist thought, the interest and welfare of the Ummah supersedes the interest and welfare of the individual Muslim. This is a reflection of the principle of "greater good" which is central in Shari'ah. Fascists reject democracy as well, but retain the notion of the supremacy of the Ummah above the individual. So in this matter, islamism and fascism connive rather than contradict.
  • You assert that opinions differ among islamist thinkers. This different opinions can be put into the article and you are welcome to do it. It is not logical to remove a complete section because it misses some opinions.
Regarding your second motivation: this one is logically more valid, but breaks because of issues of notability. Islamofascism is a regular connotation, hence notable. Even when islamofascism is a wrong label, its widespread use warrants treatment of it.
Because this article deals about islamism, it is the most logical place to discuss a categorization of islamism as a political ideology. Of course, you are welcomed to sink the connotation by citing sources which contradict the classification of islamism as a kind of fascism. Citing sources is not original research. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 14:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing this section again. It is worthless. It contains NO meaningful information; merely a tenuous comparison between fascism and Islamism, neither of which are monolithic enough to ALLOW such a comparison. In the end this comparison breaks down. Furthermore, it is being made BY YOU, based on YOUR understanding of these concepts. As such, it is original research, and does NOT belong here. It includes points of dubious merit (like calling Sistani an Islamist, which is not at all clear to me), and is generally merely argumentative without substance. These sort of squinting comparisons are not appropriate. If you can demonstrate a historical derivation from Fascism (doubtful), that would be of value. But you're doing nothing of the sort. This is akin to someone putting in a section on the Republican Party page, comparing them to fascism based on their limited prejudicial understanding of both systems. Graft 13:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm also removing that "Qur'an only" Muslims bit. There's 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. Every tiny study group and activist circle cannot merit mention. When they grow beyond 6 people and become a movement with some actual importance, THEN they merit mention. Graft 13:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
There are many Qur'an only Muslims, including Muslims at positions of power like former Queen Noor of Jordania and former president Mahathir Mohamed of Malaysia. This concept has been elaborated in a book. We are talking about tens of thousands of activists here. More than Eta or Takfir wal Hijra members.
Your attempt to justify vandalism has already been addressed in the Talk Page. Islamofascism is a notable phenomenon with hundreds of thousands of Google hits. Islamism is a political theory so treating it according to modern politicology is logical and, as a matter of fact, it already has happened. In order to classify islamism as a kind of fascism it is not necessary for a historical connection to exist. To take an example from biology: the eye of an octopus resembles to a large extent the eye of a mammal, but developed in a different evolutional path. Both organs are classified as lense eyes, because both share the same working principles. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 13:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I really don't appreciate your calling me a vandal. I've been editing this page for a LONG time, and I've contributed a great deal to its structure and content. I've been an editor on Wikipedia for many years, and I have NEVER vandalized a page.
  • I did not call you a vandal, I described the undiscussed removal of a relevant section as vandalism. If you don't like your editing to be associated with the epithet vandalism, then act accordingly.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 15:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Islamofascism has its own article page. Cursory mention of that perjorative term is justified, but without some legitimate scholarly justification, your lengthy diatribe was not appropriate. Even the current attempt to merely cast "Islamism" as a totalitarian ideology smacks of POV, trying to demonstrate the coherence of ideological enemies of the U.S.
Islamofascism does not have an article page any more, it is now redirected to religion and fascism, while the issue is not whether islam is fascist but whether islamism is a kind of fascism, which essentially is a politicological discussion. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 15:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, politicology is not a word. Graft 14:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, seems to be a novel invention from non-English speakers. Several political science departments in e.g. Netherlands, Belgium and Croatia describe themselves in English as politicology departments, though, which makes the word notable. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 15:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, you're now actually being insulting. There was discussion of your section; SimonP delineated why it was unjustified. I removed it on those grounds. When I removed it again, I left considerable discussion of it. If you don't know what vandalism is, I suggest you need to spend a little more time on Wikipedia. Throwing that term at good-faith editors is extraordinarily rude.
Removing a well-sourced section just because you don't like it does qualify as vandalism as per Wikipedia policy. Calling a paragraph useless garbage and bad quality, ignoring valid arguments and unilaterally deleting it cannot be classified as a good-faith attitude. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 16:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
As to the issue at hand, the Neofascism and religion page has a perfectly adequate discussion of whether Islamism is fascist. It's not a discussion of whether Islam is fascist. Graft 15:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
So what is your objection in treating the subject at this place? We are not talking about the relation between religion and fascism, but about the relation between islamism and fascism. So this page is the most appropriate place for that. Note that we are discussing political aspects, not religious aspects here. Note too that it is part of a political science classification.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 16:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually waiting for something resembling an apology, here. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Graft 04:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You will dramatically decrease waiting time when you offer something like an apology for deleting that sectiobn. This would amount to good faith, hence declassifying it as vandalism. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 09:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Never mind. That section needed to be deleted for reasons both SimonP and myself made clear. It still needs to be trimmed down to a bare line or two. I do NOT see the purpose in comparing Islamism to fascism. They are not closely linked at all, and the ONLY purpose in connecting them is a perjorative one. That does not serve the purposes of NPOV. And since there IS an article that discusses the relationship between Islamism and fascism (Religion and fascism, as you'll discover if you read it closely), there's no need to treat the subject at length here. The Pipes line (which was present earlier in the intro and seems to have gotten lost) is sufficient. And you've still not provided justification for your "Qu'ran only" Muslims bit. Graft 12:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Islamism vs Muslim?

When we refer to Islamcist or Islamists, are we directly referring to Muslims or to a differnt type of Muslim. I think that it is important because western thought is to focus on any "isms" as not being letigimite religions.

Therefore, shouldn't we make the distinguishing features here?

Anon, Islamism is a current inside Islam, but it doesn't neatly fit inside any sectarian boundaries. There are Shi'a Islamists -- as in Iran -- but most of the Islamists are Sunni Muslims. Sunni Islam is very much a "big tent" religion. Some scholars have called it an "orthopraxy" rather than an "orthodoxy". That is, as long as the Sunni Muslim does the daily prayers, goes to the mosque on Fridays, keeps Ramadan, and does Hajj, he/she can believe what she wants. There are many schools of jurisprudence, theology, mysticism, etc. Now, the Sunni Islamists are Salafis, and Salafis/Wahhabis have, in my opinion, taken advantage of this Sunni latitudinarianism. They can stigmatize all other Muslims as unbelievers, but they themselves aren't rejected by the Sunnis they've just called names. This may be changing. There have been internicine struggles in a number of Western mosques, struggles to replace an Islamist imam with a moderate one, or to keep Islamists from taking over the mosque. But these are struggles at the level of the local mosque foundation, or waqf. There's really no authority who can "excommunicate" Osama bin Laden as a murderer. So, Islamism is not Islam, most Muslims are not Islamists but ... it's all too easy for outsiders to think that they're all the same. Zora 21:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Zora makes a good point, and it's a problem quantifying this article. There are too many Islamist groups really, and each holds to their "own" idea of what being Muslim is. Queeran

obvious bullshit

Right up front is this bullshit: "Islamist movements seek to re-shape the state by implementing a conservative formulation of Sharia."

This is simply not true of all who profess to be Islamists, i.e. those supporting Islam as a political movement. The moderate democratic Islamist party in Turkey certainly does not seek this, their position on what Islam is, is more like the modern UN human rights position. And in Iraq there are Islamists who call for the "most liberal of several interpretations of Sharia" to be used, as it was under Saddam Hussein. So as usual this article is slanting because the slogan 'Islamism' is not real but is made up by the opponents of Islamists.

Islamists don't regard themselves as Islamists???

What does this mean? There's an error somewhere, right?

"Islamists regard themselves as Muslims rather than Islamists, while moderate Muslims reject this notion."

Debate between Islamists , Moderate Muslims, Ex-muslim and Europeans captures the nature of the beast

You will need broadband to see this remarkable exchange of views. Video: Debate between Islamists , Moderate Muslims, Ex-muslim and Europeans