Talk:Islamism/Archive 4

message: :"For example, one needs to have a look at the lead definition of Islamism, Islamic Fundamentalism, Islamic world and Dhimmi. Wikipedia doesn’t say who coined the term “Islamism” and when. It rather says it is “a set of political ideologies” which “hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that should govern the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state.” Before making it the lead definition, did the editors give it a thought to verify and see why did the Qur’an called Islam a Deen for Muslims? If Islam is not a Deen—a way of life—what is it actually? And if it is a way of life, why should it not cover “legal, social and economic imperatives.” Interestingly, there is no entry for Deen in Wikipedia. There is only a reference to a Bosnian dancer by the name of Deen. The absence of Deen in Wikipedia is not for the reason that there is no space for Arabic entries or it is less important than other Arabic terms such as Riba. A proper definition of the word Deen with reference to the Qur’an will nullify the falsehood under Islamism." 
Can we create an article called Deen, and can we get the origin of the word Islamism into the article (from memory, I think it was Voltaire who first coined it)? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't give a lot of credit to the criticism (Wikipedia isn't a standards board), but this seems like a good reason for an article.  It is very important to clarify terms.  Unfortunately, I have no sources on where the term "Islamism" originates. --Vector4F 06:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue raised by MediaMonitors.net 

message: Just got done reading the above. It was stimulating. To be clear, I definitely want to talk things over and I encourage criticism.  Here's my position:  The term "Islamism" is useful, as evidenced in plenty of scholarly literature for at least 30 years (at least in the English-speaking world).  If 9/11 had never happened, it would still exist.
User:24.7.141.159, you brought up the point that Islam is a social system.  Yes, this is true.  But this is not what this article addresses.  Islamism is the belief that Islam should monopolize society (to varying degrees) and that  substantial *political* legitimacy should be afforded to Islam.  Not all Muslims believe this.  We can argue about whether or not they are "true" Muslims, but that is not for an encyclopedia.  
Legitimacy is not a correlation argument, though it is common to conceptualize it that way.  Let me give you an example:
If you frown upon "Islamists" who view the Qur'an as a source of political doctrine, but the Qur'an itself leans towards what you call parliamentary democracy which I assume you also believe, then does that mean you are also an Islamist (by your definition)?
No.  Correlation does not equal causation, my friend.  This is a huge issue in political philosophy.  If we say "the Qur'an is a source of constitutional law", that is *not* the same as saying "the Qur'an has many of our constitutional ideals".  Causation generally means that ideas bear the rule of constitutional law.  Until then, it is only a correlation.  Islamists either do not respect this distinction or work to establish a causation relationship.  Merely affirming the correlation, however, does not make one an Islamist.  That is a straw man.
Now, here's the catch (and this is controversial).  In many Muslim societies, the causation/correlation distinction is simply not observed.  Specifically, there is no solid Western idea of "separation of church and state" (American or European varieties).  Instead, we find societies with political systems and populaces which have not firmly decided on this (Turkey is a grey zone).  This isn't bad - it just is.  Islamists generally know the distinction, however, and assert that Islam should have causation status.  They often describe this as a correlation, but they operate towards making Islam as law.  It is their intentions here and the object of their work which is important.
Why does "Islamism", the label exist?  The concept of Islamism largely exists from Western discourse on Islam.  (I say "Western" and I infer secularism and modernism.)  The concept exists to explain this lack of distinction between religion and politics.  In the West, secularism is a very sure idea (it is also artificial, of course).  In most Muslim countries, the word is less certain.  Islamism describes philosophies that advocate a particular opposition to secularism.  Not all Muslims have a strong position on secularism - many do not see it as a real thing at all.  But Islamists do.  They see political institutions which need Islam as an alternative to secularism. --Vector4F 08:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum.  User:24.7.141.159, about the definition of Islamism.  The "negative connotation" definition is too narrow (9/11 is not the major issue).  The "classical" definition has merit but, I think, really does not capture the specific problems of Islam in a world where secular states hold major influence.  Islamism developed largely as a revitalization of classical views of statehood+Islam, but also sought to counter modern secularization.  The classical view was that Islam was a social system.  The modern dilemma is that secularization threatens this goal.  The Islamists come in and say that the classical view is dying (not true, but it seemed that way; see Cairo c.1900) and argue that it needs to be revived by fighting secularism.  The Islamists not only have an agenda, but an opponent.  Islamism starts as an attempt to strengthen the classical view, but ends up completely revising it.  This contradiction runs throughout all Islamist movements, and has divided them for a long time (Muslim Brotherhood being a good example).  --Vector4F 08:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than reiterate a lot of the above, I'll just add a few directed observations. First, regarding the above debate - it is indisputable that there have been large secularization trends in the Islamic world in the past few years, part of which entails referencing the Qu'ran. Yes, one CAN find support for democracy in the Qu'ran, if one chooses to do so. But this is not what we see in 1400 years of history, actually. That position is a historical departure. Ijma did not mean "rule by the people" in the past, it meant rule by the ulema. It's classical usage is way more in line with vilayat-e-faqih than it is with democracy. My position is just that there should be a useful term to distinguish between secular reformists who promote novel interpretations of the Qu'ran and those who advocate various kinds of retrogressions to earlier Islamic forms. As suggested in the body of the article, the term "Islamist" should apply to those who are moving for a return to earlier established principles. Bhutto wasn't advocating a return to the law being defined by traditional fiqh, as happened in Afghanistan and Sudan. There should be a way to describe those who DO feel this way. Graft 21:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of you deserve long responses and I'll do that by Wednesday. Graft you said: But this is not what we see in 1400 years of history, actually. That position is a historical departure. Ijma did not mean "rule by the people" in the past, it meant rule by the ulema. It's classical usage is way more in line with vilayat-e-faqih than it is with democracy. Looking at the empires in Iraq, Spain, North Africa and even the Ottoman's, your statement would be incorrect. Many of these Islamic empires from hundreds of years ago until modern times have had high ranking officials who weren't Muslim. Even during the Prophet's time in Medina, the rule of government was squarely in the hands of democracy within the bounds of "god's word." I would like you to cite specific examples over the last 1400 of empires supporting your claims. 24.7.141.159 01:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamism is about politics

message: I added this new section.  What I wrote is not very good, but is a first step to considering philosophy of history and Islamism.  Basically, many groups have a view on history which is essential to understanding their theories.  This has proved extremely important over time - for example, Qutb's rejection of many classical Islamic periods and his direct commentary on the Qur'an has been very influential. --Vector4F 17:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intellectual Sources of Islamism

message: I removed this link "Main Columns of the Osame Bin Laden Ideology".  The English translation was poor and was too focused on bin Laden.  The crux of the article was that bin Laden is an Islamist because his objectives are political.  However, the article  goes on to say that bin Laden is not a "pure" Islamist and has other goals in mind (e.g. terrorism, anti-Westernism).  This piece is specific to bin Laden and applies to a different article. --Vector4F 23:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: USAK Link

message: I notice that the intro keeps changing, reverting, etc.  As I write this, the current version is 45477409.  Personally, I prefer the previous version 45311124 - it is shorter and more clear (in my mind).  However, the current text is not bad or wrong (the "legal, social, political, etc." part is a little much, though) and part of it was previously editted by myself (so can't argue with that, eh?).  
If anyone has a particular opinion on the intro, it would be great if you shared it so that future edits can consider your perspective. For example, I don't think the Deen link is necessary, though its not worth ceaseless reverting to change it. In fact, it may actually be more confusing, as Islamists have some heterodox views on Deen. We may need more room than the intro affords us to clarify this. That is, I think the intro should be minimalist. --Vector4F 03:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The additional sentence is a false dichotomy because it suggests Islamists do not belong in the category of peace-loving and are violent. This is not true. Many Islamists make use of violence to pursue their goals, but there are non-violent Islamists in many quarters, and violence is certainly not a hallmark of Islamism in the manner suggested by your sentence (or, actually, words like 'moderate' in general, which is highly POV). Graft 22:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, that violence is not a hallmark of Islamism, but it is what many people associate with Islamism. Actually my sentence tried to explain, that virtually all Muslims desire to live by islamic principles in legal, social, political, economic and political spheres of life and therefore could be called Islamists by this articles definition. But still most muslims support peace and reject the use of their religion to justify violence of course. Raphael1 23:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate over the introduction

message: I'm removing the POV tags. The editor who added them appears to simply be trolling. I do not see any content additions by him, nor any attempts to edit the article to try to restore it to an NPOV state. He seems to be "crying wolf". Kyaa the Catlord 08:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So now you've determined for yourself the article is now compliant with the neutral POV perspective? Can you please tell us why you think this change was necessary? 24.7.141.159 09:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ip-man, did you see my reasoning above? Instead of crying wolf, please be bold and make changes. Kyaa the Catlord 12:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked some tough questions to which I am still waiting for responses. If anything, this talk page shows that Wikipedia is in the process of defining the term which goes against WP:NOR. Furthermore, my extremely long arguments against the definition and examples are above for you to read. If you feel like you have something to contribute then please jump in above. As it stands, this article is completely anti-Islam and the NPOV tags will stay. Do not get into a revert war with me because we all know the consequences as such. 24.7.141.159 19:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides, ipman, you're confused about the NPOV policy. We are discussing a controversial subject here, there are many references to the fact that Islamism is a very debated topic. There are multiple views presented, but undue weight is not given to those contrary to the subject of the article. This is totally in line with the NPOV policy. Kyaa the Catlord 12:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Vector4F: I agree with your reasoning to remove the NPOV. If no one else wants to speak up, I vote to remove the tag. That does not change my belief the article is grossly anti-Islamic. 24.7.141.159 09:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Why am I bothering to argue with someone who doesn't care enough to have a userpage? I must be insane. I'm dropping this. Kyaa the Catlord 09:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing POV tags

message: Looking at the history, I see the makings of an edit tug-of-war.  This POV tag dispute is pointless.  There's nothing more POV than arguing about a POV tag.  Every page on the Internet should have a POV tag.  Is anyone somehow more or less convinced about an article by its tag (and should this be encouraged)?  Does the tag do anything except advance a suspicion without evidence?  And what exactly does debating about the tag accomplish?  If anyone has a problem with the article, let's work on the problem and forget the tags.  
I encourage any editor involved to drop the issue. Let the article's content speak for itself. NPOV is not about non-biased editors, but informed readers.  That's as real as NPOV will ever be. --Vector4F 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vector4F: I agree with your reasoning to remove the NPOV. If no one else wants to speak up, I vote to remove the tag. That does not change my belief the article is grossly anti-Islamic. 24.7.141.159 09:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Why am I bothering to argue with someone who doesn't care enough to have a userpage? I must be insane. I'm dropping this. Kyaa the Catlord 09:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wasted effort

message: When Edward Said made his case against Orientalism, he was also making a case against essentialist Islam.  His project of skeptical negation, based on the genealogical tradition hailing from Neitzsche, comes full circle in determining that there there is no essential Islam.  This was, of course, the ground of much of Orientalism.  In response, some scholars have sought to reconstruct Islam in a non-essential way (e.g. Al-Azmeh).  If there is a Western misreading of Islam, I would point to those scholars who have tried to redefine Islam as fragmentary.  This seems very Western, to my senses.  However, I don't really concern myself with pointing fingers - Said, Foucault, etc. created their own problems and I don't care to share in them.
Still, I am always surprised that Said's thesis - opposition to Orientalism paired with a critique of terminology - is used by anyone trying to defend an essential interpretation of Islam.  This line of inquiry can be used to negate an essential concept of Islam as surely as it negates Orientalism.  (see Bobby Said, "A Fundamental Fear") I, for one, came here to contribute to an article, not to undermine the pretext of said article.
My point is this: I think everyone on this page is willing to agree with a core set of ideas which compose Islam.  It naturally follows, then, that there can exist a core set of meta-ideas, if you will, which we might call Islamism.  Having both definitions does not conflict.
To be sure, such an Islamist will speak of their meta-ideas through core Islamic ideas.  This confusion is unavoidable, yet critical to the issue at hand, which is this: religion does not have picket fences, only horizons.  Islamists say Muslims should set their fences only at the horizon.  Not all Muslims feel they are called to build such fences - many believe it is wrong - especially when it may disrupt their neighbors.  The use of force is secondary; the primary issue is the constitution of religion. Is it political, for example? Can a political fence be built on the horizon? Yes, there are such fences, and yes, they have no effect on where the horizon is.  The Qur'an, for example, does speak of where we should build fences in respect to the horizon.  But the Islamist assumes that the horizon is a place where fences can be built. --Vector4F 12:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although we may disagree on some points on this article, by no means can anyone say you are not an intelligent person. Great thought provoking questions seem to be a hallmark of your contributions. "Essentialist Islam" does in fact exist but where we go wrong is to judge Muslims as being perfect followers (drones). In this sense, the arguments of Said still stand because accepting "essentialist Islam" does not necessarily mean that an "essentialist Muslim" exists. The only the way two of them could theoritically exist is if Islam had no grey areas but rather was presented as a bullet-style list of right and wrong. The mistake that we as Westerners make is blurring the lines of the concepts of "essentialist Islam," "essentialist Muslim," and human nature. Furthermore, we as humans try to explain and understand our observations through our own paradigms even when the implied meanings of those words do not accurately convey reality. I don't know if that made any sense but I'll elaborate on it later. As it stands, I have called up B&N to pick up a copy of "A Fundamental Fear." I should be done reading it by later tonight. Hopefully I can pick this up where I left off. (Time to get a user name.) 24.7.141.159 18:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are we going

message: To whom it may concern:
This entire article is about Sunni teachings and ideologues - the word "Shi'a" is not even mentioned. Khomayni, Iran, shariati, Khatami, Hizbullah, SCIRI, MKO, Da'wa, the Rushdie affair, Muqtada al-Sadr, al-Sistani, Fadlallah, etc etc etc... it's not as if there isn't plenty of Shi'a islamism to write about. Arre 12:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're are still figuring out what Islamism actually is rather than adding anyone we disagree with who also happens to be Muslim. I'm more than willing to hash out this discussion if you want to give a justification of why each of those groups qualifies under the banner of Islamism. Before you begin, please define Islamism so we are on the same page. 24.7.141.159 12:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, I've long been aware and frustrated by this problem, which more or less highlights the dubious nature of the term "Islamism" as a coherent ideology. Correcting this, however, requires extensive work of the sort indicated by 24 (who should really get a username!) Graft 16:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Killer flaw

message: I removed everything taht was just opinion and that could not be verified. The article should be rewriten USING sources. The article should also not be written by people who has anti-Islamic Bias. It appears the people who wrote the orginal article are anti-Muslim and want to define proper Islam and fundamentalist Islam using their OWN OPINIONS. This is not your personal essay, this is an encyclopedia. Everything must be verifiable and must have sources. I would recommend that the original people who wrote the article not contribute any of the orginal biased, anti-Islam garbage they had contributed in the past. MuslimsofUmreka 10:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MuslimsofUmreka, I am not one of the original contributors, and I too see much that could be expanded upon or improved.  Note that nothing in this article attempts to define "proper Islam" - it is actually you who have been doing so here on the talk page by asserting that all true Muslims are Islamists.  You start with that premise and then say that ipso facto those who define Islamism presume to define "proper Islam".  That is your POV.  It is also not up to you to say who should be banned from editted Islam-related topics based on your perception of bias.  I've no aversion to including the Islamist POV.  However, your recent edit is considered vandalism; such changes will be reverted.Timothy Usher 10:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please sign your contributions from now on please. Secondly, you are as much as a part of the problem as anyone on the opposite side is. It helps to look in the mirror before pointing fingers. 24.7.141.159 11:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please sign your comments by adding these to the end of your comment: ~~~~. 24.7.141.159 12:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I reverted this to a pre-edit war state. Also, you are closing in on 3rr, MuslimsofUmreka. Kyaa the Catlord 12:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ReWrite Article with sources

message: With term Islamist and Islamism, you can not write an article in this format. Use the article nigger as an example. It gives an evolution of the word and how different people have used it and view it. Saying that some people follow islamist ideology is a matter off opinion, not fact. You can not prove that somebody is an Islamist unless the openely declare and say, "I am an Islamist." The article should be reformatted to include quotes from different political leaders and people on how they view this term. Examples:
* Progressive Muslims support a secular government.
* Sunni Muslims and other Muslim sects in general follow the Quran to the letter with strict tafsir that is based on hadiths. They consider themselves to be just plain Muslims.
* The media generally identifies Islamists as terrorist groups.
* In the arabic language, the prefix Mu is added to Islam to donate the term Muslim which means one who follows Islam. This is the correct technical term to indetify followers of Islam with. Islamist is considered politically incorrect from this stand point.
The above are examples of how this article should be formatted. 165.230.73.18 13:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper Sources and the right way to write this article

message: I have begun to add citations and sources from different political thoughts on the term. I owuld recommend that the rest of the article be cleaned up and sources be added. Everything else lacks sources and seems to based on opinion. Wikipedia has a policy against orginal research. Everything that goes in wikipedia must have a published source. 165.230.73.20 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding sources and citations

message: So, the "Encyclopedia of the Orient" claims (here) that Islamiyya is the Arabic term for Islamist and is used by Islamists to self-identify. Unfortunately I haven't seen this statement anywhere else. Anyone familiar with Arabic usage, in particular maybe Egyptian, able to comment on this? Graft 02:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Graft, good to see you're back. Islamiyya is probably best described as something being "Islamic" as Timothy has said. However, the term is generally used in language to describe anything that can be Islamic. For example, if the local grocery story is providing meat congruent with Islamic teachings then the store would be referred to as being "Islamiyya." Furthermore, this isn't just an Arabic term but is also present in Persian, Urdu, Punjabi and Farsi. 24.7.141.159 03:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that just means "Islamic". As established, Islamists claim that they are merely following Islam as it was intended; it is others who call them Islamists.Timothy Usher 03:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this agrees with my meager prior understanding - but I meant more with regards to connotation rather than denotation. Seems like especially the more radical groups would want some way to self-identify and set themselves apart from the flock. Groups seeking to coalesce a movement around an identity might want to adopt the more pan-Islamic, inclusive self-label (calling themselves mere Muslims), but it seems like at least some Islamist groups would want to have a more exclusive label for themselves, to separate themselves from "Muslims" they don't like. But maybe not. Graft 17:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamiyya