Talk:Islamism/Archive 3

message: 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. ." 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)
thread_title: US Troops in Saudi Arabia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Why not consider 'islamist' as a handy shorthand for 'islamic fundamentalist'?  --Rudi Dierick 14:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unclear words = unclear info 

message: 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 . - Ta bu shi da yu 12:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Another source

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further to what the OED says 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Islamism different from Islam

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Kepel/Saddam 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nuttall and Islamism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Islamism and history