Talk:Islamism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Islam Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamism article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

Archives
Archive 1	Delete
Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

Contents 1 Post 9/11 Issues 2 Etiquette 3 This page 4 Start Fresh 4.1 My take on the concept of Islamism by MuslimsofUmreka 01:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 4.1.1 Introduction 4.1.2 Islam, what it says 4.1.3 The term Islamism and what it implies 4.1.4 Other major Problems with the term Islamism 4.1.5 The political incorrectness of the term 4.1.6 Conclusion: What this article should focus on 4.2 Why I think your's is a totally crap attempt at a rewrite 4.3 A Muslim's view on Islamism 5 The Prophet was a reformer & he was never a 'rebel' 6 Islamism in Contemporary Usage 7 To end this dispute, tell me if you atleast agree with this 8 Dont Understand 9 Martin Kramer link spam 10 Please remove the protection to the page. 11 Recent change 12 Re: introductory caveat 13 Please stop removing tags 14 Recent revisions 15 Is there an anti-Islamic bias here? 16 Changes 17 Definition of Islamism 18 Borderline vandalism 19 Proposed hybrid intro 20 Thanks Kyaa 21 Citation needed and Islamism at odds with Wikipedia Islam Project 22 Spam event horizon 23 definition of Islamism 24 Very Weird 25 Removed totallydisputed tag 26 Islamic fundamentalism 27 To do List April 21 28 Warning, incoming! 29 The Moderate Islamist of the Comoros 30 Slightly Off Topic 31 Too Little Info 32 Ambiguous Definition 33 Disputed and POV tags replaced 34 Interesting recent articles in The Nation 35 Salafism/Wahhabism 36 SCOPE & CONTEXT 37 Anti islam comments by Netaji 38 Clean This Junk Up 38.1 The Problem of Placing Western Terms on islam 39 Need to Higher Scholarly Standards 40 For Further Reading Section 41 This article needs deleting 41.1 Tagging with worldview and disputed about 41.1.1 The Term is a Western Invention 42 Cleanup 43 Thanks for the Attempt, But Still Problematic 44 Re: Iranian Islamic Revolution & Khomeinism 45 The Muslim Brotherhood 46 Etymology Needs to Be Expanded Upon 47 We Are Not Arguing Against the Existence of Islamism 48 Algeria 49 Ayubi quote? 50 Muslim 51 Opening Paragraph 52 Militant Islam? 53 Daniel Pipes view on Islam 54 Pan-Islamism 55 Islamists=3/4 all Islamic teachings? 56 Foundadtion of the first Islamic Republic in Iran 57 Relation between Islam and Islamism 58 Section on "Islam, Islamism and the west" 59 Symbol/emblem of this ideology 60 Merger with Political aspects of Islam 60.1 Get rid of the Political aspects of Islam merger tag? 61 This article needs additional citations for verification. 62 No section devoted to Islamist terrorism? 63 Mawdudi section trimmed 64 9/11 Commission Report's definition of Islamism 65 Neutral point of view? 66 To Clarify 67 Democracy in Islam 68 March 3 Edits by Anon 69 June 4 Edits by Anon

[edit] Post 9/11 Issues

"However, given the instability caused by the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it seems that in order to bring that region under control again, there will be some sort of cooperation between the West and Islamist groups". This is an opinion, not an encyclopedic fact. I think it should be removed. Dberliner 22:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

== Fighting over Beliefs is WRONG! ==

I think that the Islamic groups should not be fighting in Iraq over religions. Everyone belives something different and they don't have to change other peoples beliefs to what they belive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.179.56 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So what's your point? Your opinion does not matter here. --Hamster X (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the narrow definition of islamism's role as "an Islamic militant, anti-democratic movement, bearing a holistic vision of Islam whose final aim is the restoration of the caliphate." is not NPOV. Especially considering the source is the 9/11 Commision Report and the immediate context for this definition is the statement that "Islamist terrorism is an immediate derivative of Islamism." 79.68.107.72 (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that since not everyone agrees on the definition of Islamism to give more than one definition, and definitions from notable sources. The "broad" definition could be called favorable to Islamism (the guy who wrote it is very much in favor of freedom of expression for Islamists) and the narrow one unfavorable. That a source has a poor opinion of Islamists may or may not make the source un-neutral in its POV, but it doesn't mean the article that quotes it is POV ... anymore than the favorable opinion of the "broad" definition makes the article un-neutral in POV.

PS, please put your posts at the bottom of the page. otherwise they are hard to find. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etiquette

Do not remove or alter other users' comments. If anyone does this going forward, I will block them immediately. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)d like to once again alert all users to wikipedia policies WP:NPA, WP:3RR and WP:SOCK. Please read them and follow them if you are not already doing so. Following them will help keep our discussions productive.Timothy Usher 20:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you remindng everyone to follow established policy. I certainly hope this means that your actions in the future won't be a reason for me to rerequesting semi-protection. Last thing, I know you have been posting here along with Vector4F, Kyaa, Graft, and User:24. User:Katefan0 has been very generous by contributing time to get this place back in order and s/he has also archived the talk page. Can you people please let Katefan0 know if any threads need to be pulled out of archive? Thanks. Hrana98 20:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Err. Rather a lot got archived, including some active threads. Can we be a LITTLE more conservative and only archive things that have been dead for, say, three weeks? Graft 20:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I haven't looked at the talk page conversation becuase little of it seemed productive. If there are specific threads you'd like to bring back, go ahead. Just cut and paste from the latest archive above. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My revert was based on WP:RPA. This does not constitute vandalism, or a basis for requesting page protection. I am still unclear what benefit you saw in restoring User:24.7.141.159's latest violations of WP:NPA, and would be curious to hear your explanation. Regardless, if this policy is followed, I've no reason to remove anyone's comments.Timothy Usher 20:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to discuss particulars of the various battles you had going on this talk page but what I can conclude is the behavior leading up to semiprotection was reprehensible. There are ample examples where you violated WP:NPA and made unfounded accusations against fellow editors. This spirit of playing a fact-finder and acting like moral police is shunned due largely to the fact it is offtopic, leads to flamewars, and is counterproductive to the aims of Wikipedia. Quite frankly, you need to take this battle off Wikipedia and deal with it via some other civil means. Regardless, censorship of a Talk page cannot be condoned and you were guilty of that by your own admission. Your desire to cite WP:RPA is problematic because it is not official WP policy and it is abused by one side of an argument reglularly (as cited on WP:RPA). Furthermore, as per WP:RPA, it would have been in the best interest of everyone for you to remove your own personal attacks before editing the other side's comments. I would urge you to ask an administrator to intervene before removing comments in the future. Hrana98 01:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not personally attack other editors. Your comment, "Quite frankly, you need to take this battle off Wikipedia and deal with it via some other civil means." recalls User:24.7.141.159's "Slander, whether electronic, has consequences in civil society and I'm willing to pursue those avenues." No one else was suggesting this type of thing, and I don't see why you are suggesting it to me; in fact to do as you suggest would violate WP:NLT as discussed. As you recognize, this is all quite off-topic, so if will you allow me to get back to the matter at hand, that would be greatly appreciated.Timothy Usher 01:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is becoming quite clear that you are an argumentative editor with paranoid delusions. To claim that I'm making legal threats against you and violating WP:NLT is yet another baseless claim which you seem to be so good at making. If nothing else, you are clearly showing that you are the problem on this talk page. Since you obviously can't parse a simple English sentence, let me do it for you. "Quite frankly, you need to take this battle off Wikipedia..." means that I do not want to see any more battles or arguments by you with myself or any other editors in these talk pages. Doing so will prompt me to ask for Administrator actions against your account--it's that simple. The second part of the sentence kindly asked for you to "...deal with it via some other civil means." The word civil is defined in the context of social order as opposed to uncivilized behavior. In other words, deal with your problems like an intelligent, educated, and mature individual through open communication instead of playing the victim card. If you need to discuss this further, then move it to your talk page and remove it from here. Thank you. Hrana98 06:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"It is becoming quite clear that you are an argumentative editor with paranoid delusions." Once again, read WP:NPA as well as WP:CIVILITY.

"...I do not want to see any more battles or arguments by you with myself or any other editors in these talk pages." There is nothing untoward about arguing on talk pages, with you (regardless of which account you use) or any other editor. We need to argue in order to come to informed agreement or at least reach NPOV. However, it's important that our arguments not contain personalized invective or threats.Timothy Usher 06:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fabricating baseless claims of legal threats where none exist is poor attitude. Please refer to Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith when dealing with editors. Please do not bait editors with fabrications and follow guidelines presented in both Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility. Also, remember you aren't here to restort to mortal combat with other editors nor is it realistic to play the victim card. If you are unclear on these and other points, I would point you to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. Please honor my request to move this argument off the Talk:Islamism page. Thank you for participating and I fully expect that this is the last response from you. Hrana98 07:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote, “To claim that I'm making legal threats against you and violating WP:NLT is yet another baseless claim which you seem to be so good at making.”

Please re-read more carefully: I wrote “Your comment, "Quite frankly, you need to take this battle off Wikipedia and deal with it via some other civil means." recalls User:24.7.141.159's "Slander, whether electronic, has consequences in civil society and I'm willing to pursue those avenues." No one else was suggesting this type of thing, and I don't see why you are suggesting it to me; in fact to do as you suggest would violate WP:NLT as discussed.”

User:24.7.141.159's comment, as quoted, is by the most straightforward reading a violation of WP:NLT. Your latest comment does not threaten legal action, and I didn’t claim it did. Rather, you suggested that *I* take it up outside wikipedia, which I’ve no interest in doing.

“...I fully expect that this is the last response from you.”

This is a collaborative enterprise. You can no more bar me from responding than you can demand that I not argue with you or other editors, as you’d stated above when you wrote, "I do not want to see any more battles or arguments by you with myself or any other editors in these talk pages. Doing so will prompt me to ask for Administrator actions against your account--it's that simple." Timothy Usher 07:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to defend User:24 but I read the exchange on the Talk page. User:24 gave you a warning that s/he would go to the Moderation Cabal. That threat does not qualify under WP:NLT. Just like you are lecturing me about violating WP:NLT (when in fact I made no legal threats) opens the door to the possibility that you are assuming bad faith. Please refer to Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. I would also suggest quoting sentences in context. Please honor my request to move this argument off the Talk:Islamism page. Thank you for participating and I fully expect that this is the last response from you. This request does not qualify making a victim-mentality inspired statement suggesting that I'm bar[ing] [you] from responding. Violating rules of our community will constitute a reason to ban any user, not just you. Are you asking to be banned? I certainly hope not. Hrana98 07:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page

I'd like to remind everyone that this page is only for discussion of the article. I suggest the editors take the recent archiving as an opportunity to begin again. Let's assume everyone is going to be civil and move forward on that basis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Start Fresh

Okay, I am gonna start fresh. Lets just get some facts straight about the term Islamist. This term is used as a label. People are labeled Islamist instead of just plain Muslim because people OUTSIDE of the Muslim community want to define Muslims and what Islam is. The term is derogatory just as the word nigger and spick (aimed at spanish peope). Muslims do not WANT to be labeled as Islamist, the only label they want is Muslim. When writing an article such as this, everything should come from other sources. Every statement should be quoted and talked about in a nuetral view point.

Also, please don't label groups as Islamist. Regardless how feel about them, when you label deobandis, wahabis, taliban, tableeghi jamaat, etc., you are only labeling them that from your own opinion. If you go to the nigger article, they talk about the term nigga, but they dont label people as niggers or nigga. They only mention factual information about the term and how it evolved into different terms. Labeling groups as Islamist is not recommended. Instead talk about the history off the term and how it came into being and how it is used today. The previous article labels people. It does not provide any factual information about what the term is. The only portion that provides factual information are the portions that were completely re-edited. They include the new introductory section and the basic definition of the term section. Aspects of Islamism sections were edited half way through. The fundamentalists section and political sections were re-edited. The rest of the article is still the same. MuslimsofUmreka 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamism is not properly an epithet, but a descriptive term with wide currency in contemporary English usage referring to, simply put, the belief that one or another interpretation of Islam should be the surpreme organizing principle of government. It typically used in a serious and matter-of-fact manner when discussing or analyzing political parties and trends, not as an insult or in anger. I, too, use the term, and do not presume either to “define Muslims and what Islam is”, or to deride Muslims or Islam generally. Nor do users of this term apply it to all or even most Muslims. Similarly, I am personally acquainted with Muslims who use the term to describe these political movements in a similarly descriptive non-epithet-like way.

Whether it is potentially misleading is another point, one which invariably arises on other articles about broad ideological labels as well.

Questions: 1) do you agree that there it can be useful to broadly distinguish between those who advocate Islam as the supreme organizing principle of government (for example the restoration of the Caliphate or rule of the judiciary) from those, Muslims or otherwise, who advocate relatively secular forms of government, 2) and if so, what terminology do you consider should be used the former case?

We should recognize that Islamists do not use this term for themselves, but assert that they are merely following and applying the religion of Islam as it was originally intended, and consider the term misleading in that it suggests Islamism to be a latter-day extrapolation from Islam rather than a straightforward application of the religion in its original intent: if one believes that Islam mandates political Islamism, then the term is redundant. Since the article is about Islamism, theirs is a very important POV which must be fairly, accurately and prominently represented.

Your point about sources is well-taken, and indeed there were many such unsourced comments on both sides. We should all work more carefully in the future, and build the article in a more thoughtful and incremental manner.

My objection is to the notion that Islamism-as-epithet should be the overall thrust of the article; hence I do not feel that nigger is an appropriate template in this regard, but would suggest rather liberalism, secularism or Communism, among many others.Timothy Usher 22:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To start off, the article should define what Islamism is. It is a term that labels certain people as Islamist and it is a term that those who are given that label do not give themselves. That stuff can be sourced easily and you can find a dozen published sources for that info. And the article shold give an in depth history on were the word came from and how it involved into its current use. It should also indentify the groups who use the term. The term is used by Non Muslims and Non Traditional Muslims.

"Questions: 1) do you agree that there it can be useful to broadly distinguish between those who advocate Islam as the supreme organizing principle of government (for example the restoration of the Caliphate or rule of the judiciary) from those, Muslims or otherwise, who advocate relatively secular forms of government, 2) and if so, what terminology do you consider should be used the former case?"

To answer your above question; this is my opinion I am about to give so it can not be included in the article unless it is cited from a published source. So just think of the following as a side note. Those Muslims who term other Muslims as Islamists are Muslims who have given up practicing Islam or have introduced a completely new version of Islam. They do not follow real Islam so in my opinion they either do not count as real Muslims or can be labeled as Progressive Muslims or modern Muslims. It is sort of like this. For example, say you grew up in New York City. Then you move out of New York City to a land far away like Ohio or something. Even though you no longer live in NYC, you label yourself as a new yorker. Then you in turn label those who still live in NYC as extreme New Yorkers. But let me just get something straight, Islam forbids Muslims from attacking innocent people, women, and children. So those who atacked the WTC would not count as Muslims nor extreme Muslims, since they violated sacred laws. Islam only gives permission too Muslims too attack those who attack them and are planning too attack them. If somebody is making a plan to attack a Muslim town, Muslims can attack them first, but there are major conditions. No matter what happens, Muslims still can not attack women, children or innocent people. They can only attack their pure enemies (those who plan to hurt them). I hope that clears up some things. My point is that those Muslims who hurt innocent people can also be excluded from the definition of Islam and thus should also not be included in the definition of extreme Muslims as well since they have violated Islamic laws. MuslimsofUmreka 23:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside the issue of whether Islam mandates what is called Islamism - and I would personally agree that a strong case can be made that it does - would you agree that my description of the way Islamism is used, as referring the belief that one or another interpretation of Islam should be the surpreme organizing principle of government, is accurate?Timothy Usher 00:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My take on the issue is fully outlined below MuslimsofUmreka 01:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is farcical. You're asserting that Islamist groups should not be labeled as such, then you're saying that Muslims who use the term "Islamist" are not real Muslims? Come on. It's the height of conceit for you to assert that this article is POV and then throw around statements like that. Graft 03:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My take on the concept of Islamism by MuslimsofUmreka 01:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The term is very broad and can be very misleading. Islam covers a broad area and people who are termed as being Islamist also cover a wide area. First, I would like to start with what Islam allows and what it does not allow. Then I will explain the term Islamism and what it implies. In the conclusion I will explain what I believe this article should focus on.

[edit] Islam, what it says

Islam encourages Muslims to set up an Islamic government. Muslims are told that in their lands they should run the government as it is described in the Quran and Sunnah. Islam does not however say to take over other foreign governments and establish Islam. Islam teaches that dawah should be given to non Muslims. If for whatever reason non Muslims make plans to attack Muslim lands or Muslims, then Muslims should fight those who want to attack Muslims. This does not mean starting up conflicts, but if somebody declares or is being quiet hostile towrds Muslims and it can be seen that they plan to attack Muslims, then Muslims are allowed to go attack those people. Muslims are told to go to foreign lands to give dawah and to deliver the message of Islam in a peaceful manner. Muslims are supposed to spread the religion of Islam. But the jihad stuff is only to be used when others start hostilities with Muslims.

Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, even in the times of war. Muslims are told not to begin hostilities as it can be seen the following vese of the Quran, "002.190 YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits." posted from http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.190

[edit] The term Islamism and what it implies

The term Islamism implies that anybody who follows the religion of Islam appriopriately is a bad person. The term also indentifies those Muslims who trangress the limits as being extreme Muslims. But if they transgress the limits indentified in the Quran, they can not possibly be following Islam to the extreme. The concept of the terms Islamism and Islamist imply those people who no longer wish to practice Islam as it should be practiced (those people who are part of liberal movements), as being real Muslims and correct Muslims. The term implies that people who follow Islam correctly are all bad peole and should be wiped out.

[edit] Other major Problems with the term Islamism

The term donates a wide category off people falling into this category. There are Muslims who wish to setup Islamic governments in their own homelands in the middle east in a peaceful manner, but if they support an Islamic government in their own homeland, they are regarded as being Islamist by their own people (who do not practice Islam properly).

The term aslo implies thsoe who attack innocent people in terrorist attacks as following Islam strictly in the extreme manner, hence the term islamism. But in fact, these people have violated laws so they can not be folowng Islam correctly.

[edit] The political incorrectness of the term

The term Islamism and Islamist is politically in correct. Communists call themselves communists and they themselves say that they follow communism. Muslims do not say that they follow islamism, they say they follow islam. Muslims do not call themselves Islamists, they call themselves Muslims. Do you see the diference? People call hip hop culture black culture but the correct term would be hip hop culture or urban culture.

[edit] Conclusion: What this article should focus on

This article should focus on the term Islamism itself. It should give a history of where the term came from and how it is used today and why it is used like that.

The end MuslimsofUmreka 01:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this - merging this article with the article on Islamist Fundamentalism is not only confusing but misleading. I think there is a lot to say here about the history, evolution and usage of the term without getting into one specific aspect of its usage. Discussion of Islamic Fundamentalism should be relegated to only one aspect of this article and be added as a 'see also' link at the end.

[edit] Why I think your's is a totally crap attempt at a rewrite

Since Islamism isn't a terminology rooted in Islamic theology itself, but a terminology of third-party origins ascribed to movements to assert Islamic government in Muslim and nonmuslim countries, what the Quran or Hadiths say are irrelevant. Islamic theology is itself irrelevant unless you propose to prove that Islamism is a terminology rooted in the religion of Islam. It isn't.

Any rewrite must include the usage of the term, definitions offered by various sources, etc. It should go into identifying what forces have and are considered 'islamist'.

And stop using the opening phrase "Islam says". Islam isn't a person and there isn't a text that is called "Islam". There's the Quran, but the Quran is open to interpretation, and any quote originating from it regarding Shariah is contested by scholars. You could include information based on quotes of scholars who are addressing the topic of Islamism with the use of Qur'an, that's fair game..But you cannot use scripture itself to formulate your arguement. That's original research. Most Muslims in the world do not take the verses regarding living under Muslim rule as being literal in the sense that Islamic law must be implemented. Considering most Muslims don't even read Hadiths, it's inappropriate to speak of Hadiths in this article as if they define Muslim opinion on Islamic law.

The term Islamist is NOT used to as a synonym for "Muslim". I know of no credible journalist or leader who used the term "Islamist" when the term "Muslim" was appropriate. You've obviously fallen short in your research of this terminology and its usage. It is not a derogetory term.

The article CANNOT contain your personal judgements. To claim "Islamism" as a term invented to demean Muslims is ridiculous. Newspapers in Muslim countries use the term, as does Al Jazeera. There is a legitimate context where the use of the term "Islamist" and "Islamism" is appropriate. The article needs to investigate that context. All statements must be factual and sourced. Amibidhrohi 02:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Amibidhrohi.

Realize that from MOU's perspective, as per his New Yorker analogy, all true Muslims are Islamists, so to him it is synonymous.Timothy Usher 04:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide proof of this claim: Newspapers in Muslim countries use the term, as does Al Jazeera. Secondly, Islam is very relavent when you consider the concept of "Din." Din dictates political activism and, if you look at the archives, some of the new editors claim that any political active Muslim is an Islamist. This cannot be the case.

Most Muslims in the world do not take the verses regarding living under Muslim rule as being literal in the sense that Islamic law must be implemented. Please provide proof of your claim because it is just an anecdotal claim.

Considering most Muslims don't even read Hadiths, it's inappropriate to speak of Hadiths... Provide evidence of this claim because not only is it irrelavent but it is anecdotal.

The article CANNOT contain your personal judgements. Your argument is based largely on personal judgements without any citations. Dr. Abdulkarim Soroush's discussion in "Islam and the Concept of Secularity" clearly disagrees with almost everything you've written. He is a world famous researcher and you are just another Wiki editor. Please provide citations for all the above claims. Also, please provide evidence that Muslims do not have a concept of "din." 24.7.141.159 06:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The obligation is yours to prove that Muslims are categorically Islamist. Most of the Muslims in the world live in nations that do not suscribe to Islamic systems of government. Indonesia is printing their own domestic version of Playboy Magazines. Bangladesh, for example, fought a war because the Pakistanis sought to implement Islamization of their culture. Look up the Bangladesh War of Independence entry if you think this observation is anecdotal too. There are millions of Muslims in the West, many who drink and engage in all the unislamic activities typical of those born into western culture. I am one of them, as are the members of my family. To claim all Muslims follow 'deen' is ridiculous. As for media usage of 'islamist', go to english.aljazeera.com and search "islamist", see how many articles you find using that terminology. Do a bit of your own research if you are indeed curious. Because the word "Islamist" is rooted in the West, used as a political term and not a religious ones, Hadith and Quran are irrelevant in this context. Are some Muslims Islamists as well? Of course. Are all of them Islamist in the sense that they want to implement shariah? No way. Please remove the protections to this entry. Amibidhrohi 00:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The first claim at least is trivial to prove. The English version of al-Ahram has 18,900 hits for the word "Islamist". That's a lot. Considering most of the writers there are Muslims I'd say this is a pretty good proof. [1] The other claims I'm not so certain of. Graft 06:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll agree with me that Google simply turning up results alone is not validation for the definition of a term. Another user also has discussed this point in Archives/Deletion above. There are extremely anti-secular papers that have been published in South Asia that are critical of the concept of Islamism. It would be prudent to explore the context in which the word is used. I'd also like to remind you that Al-Ahram is controled by the Egyptian Ministry of Information [2] and a poll has shown that Egypt is near the bottom in terms of freedom of press [3]. Using Al-Ahram alone cannot be the standard. 24.7.141.159 07:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"...a poll has shown that Egypt is near the bottom in terms of freedom of press."

Question: Do you hold that the government or its policies have altered the result which Graft has referenced, such that there are more mentions of Islamism then there otherwise would be? If so, how?

Also, you write, "There are extremely anti-secular papers that have been published in South Asia that are critical of the concept of Islamism." Some editors have gotten pretty hard-core about sourcing lately, so to keep them happy, I ask which papers you are talking about and why you think they refute Graft's points.Timothy Usher 09:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You said: Do you hold that the government or its policies have altered the result which Graft has referenced, such that there are more mentions of Islamism then there otherwise would be?

It very much changes the position. According to Wikipedia's article of the Freedom of the Press, a discussion is provided that describes the poll I mentioned as a way to quantify direct attacks on journalists and the media as well as other indirect sources of pressure against the free press. Under a repressive government where attacks on journalists are expected, the concept of impartiality comes into question. (1) Unfortunately, this has no bearing on my point above that clearly stated using Al-Ahram alone cannot be the standard. Using a single source of information is hardly congruent with responsible discourse in academia. Are you suggesting we change our academic traditions to pander to your position? See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

You said: editors have gotten pretty hard-core about sourcing lately

I'm glad that we're finally starting to drop the anecdotal non-sense here and looking for facts in recognized sources. Do you applaud this development as much as I do?

You said: I ask which papers you are talking about

These are papers published by Universities from North Africa to India. Unfortunately most are not available online nor are they in English. Listing names at this point is rather futile.

why you think they refute Graft's points.

See my discussion in the original post that you replied to regarding using nothing more than a search as evidence without examining the actual source and the context of the term. Furthermore, see my discussion in this response regarding Freedom of Press and, again, why sourcing for one particular place is hardly the level of quality to be expected in an encyclopedia. If you have any more questions about citations then please read this: Wikipedia:Cite_sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. 24.7.141.159 15:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear just by reading any of the articles that the usage on al-Ahram is the same as what we're discussing. Plus this is not a google search - it's a search of a specific publication. 18,900 hits in one publication is a ridiculously large number. But since you seem to think al-Ahram's direction disqualifies it from the statement "Newspapers in Muslim countries use the term", what would you suggest is an appropriate one to check? Unfortunately al-Jazeera doesn't have good archiving, web search, or transcripts, so validating there is difficult. Graft 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your first statement. However, a single source cannot be enough of a reason to qualify this usage of the term. Do you agree with me on this point? User:Amibidhrohi clearly stated that this term is in general usage at many Muslim publications but both of us are having problems finding any evidence to substantiate this claim beyond Al-Ahram. Al-Ahram, even if it could be considered a reliable source, is only one example. Furthermore, the first 50 results on Google are composed by a large majority of people that could easily fall under the distinction of Islamophobes. That point can be coupled with phenomenon such as "Miserable failure" to see why we'd have Google loading up on the negative usage of the term. I'm opting to wait it out until the original claims are substantiated by the original poster. 24.7.141.159 18:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"According to Aljazeera's correspondent, members of at least six Islamist groups walked out of the joint session of parliament shortly after the president began speaking." English Al Jazeera website.

"Twenty-two journalists -- 16 based in Sylhet, five in Barguna and one in Dhaka --received death threats apparently from Islamist militants yesterday." - The Daily Star (Bangladesh)

"In the hands of undesirable elements, like the Islamists who won the Algerian elections and had to be thwarted or the Muslim Brotherhood that is knocking at the doors of President Hosni Mobarak in Egypt, it threatens to undo the democratic peace theory and is not desirable." Daily Times of Pakistan

"Recently re-emerging Islamist movements promoting the formal use of Islamic law by the state are finding that they now face opposition both from the government and from various civil society sources." InsideIndonesia.org Amibidhrohi 01:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide direct links to the articles. Furthermore, do three articles out of a population encompassing 1 billion people of a religion that has existed for 1,400 years constitute a validation of your argument? I don't think so. 24.7.141.159 09:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Demonstrate that you're genuinely interested in this issue by doing your own research. The names of the publications can be entered into google; once you're on the home pages, search 'islamist'. You are not mentally disabled, figure it out. At least demonstrate your seriousness by counting correctly: that's four sources. Typically more than 4 sources aren't required of a single statement, but if you do your research you'll find more. I merely picked the major english dailies of 3 countries, 15 mintues of work at most, in addition to the english website of Al Jazeera. Every website for a major publication in every Muslim-majority country I've looked at used the word "Islamist" in their articles. The point was that even amongst Muslims, the term "Islamist" is recognized as having a legitimate meaning and context. That point is proven. Amibidhrohi 14:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The term merely existing on a Muslim website is not enough for this definition as you state. Muslim publications do not generally dive into censoring contributors and guest interviews of certain words. It is prudent to know who used the word and where they are from. The examples given below are demonstrative of this line of reasoning. Again, please provided specific links to these articles. I have sent Tahir Mirza, editor of [[4]], an email regarding his publications usage of the term. Lastly, we need to know how the term is being used on those pages. Is Islam-ist being used in the classic sense where the suffix -ist denotes a person prescribing to the principle of Islam? Or is it being used to define anti-Western elements amongst Muslims? The most interesting aspect of this entire debate is the use of the term Islamist in the Muslim LGBT community. According to fundamental readings of the three Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Judaism, Christianity), lesbians, gays, bi, and trans ideologies are condemned. The most surprising aspect is Al-Fatiha, a Muslim LGBT organization, being self-described Islamists. So the question remains, if you are so hell bent on finding the Muslim usage of the term, then are you going to write off any usage not congruent to your end goals? 24.7.141.159 18:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

From Al-Jazeera transcripts, via Nexis:

Middle Eastern Newsmaker Wire Al-Jazeera

May 24, 2002 Friday

EMEDIA-ACC-NO:.320

LENGTH: 512 words

HEADLINE: Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, Founder of Hamas (05/24/02 22:10 Mecca), AL- JAZEERA

ANCHOR: You were accused by some corners in the Palestinian Authority of having links with foreign parties, and that you constantly worked to undermine and destroy the Palestinian Authority.

YASSIN: First of all, it's sad to enter into these diatribes. We're not ready for that. Second, we know ourselves well. We're an Islamist movement defending an Islamic homeland, and anyone who wants to call us otherwise -- everyone praises (ph) which he doesn't have.

Middle Eastern Newsmaker Wire Al-Jazeera

May 13, 2003 Tuesday

EMEDIA-ACC-NO:.320

LENGTH: 694 words

HEADLINE: Interview with Hani Al-Naqshabandi (05/13/03 00:08 Mecca), AL- JAZEERA

BODY: ANCHOR: Joining us from London, Hani Al-Naqshabandi, editor-in-chief of "Al-Majalla" newspaper. How do you see the -- what's your take on the explosions?

NAQSHABANDI: In my opinion -- in my own personal estimate, unfortunately, we look at the issue from a wrong perspective. Dealing with the problems of Islamist radicalism is not to oppress it with force but to deal with its root causes. There is more than one reason, and we need to -- and these causes need to be dealt with. One of the main causes is the American injustice in dealing with the Arab issues. Another one is the absence of the political, social and economic justice in Saudi Arabia. There are several issues that need to be addressed, and there are several lessons that need to be learned. In my estimate, fighting terrorism cannot be achieved without the use of -- with the use of force alone. Force is important, but not the only weapon.

There are a few other instances of the word "islamist" in Jazeera's transcripts. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to say the least. However, I'm surprised there aren't more examples of this and, judging by the dates, there has been ample time for the term to permiate. Furthermore, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin's use of the word is not in the sense as defined on these pages. Rather, he is using Islamist in the classic English usage of adding the suffic -ist "[5]." This can be backed up from his various speeches in Arabic. On the second example, Al-Majalla is a London-based Arabic newspaper for which Hani Al-Naqshabandi is an editor-in-chief. For him to use the term Islamist isn't surprising. I would be more convinced if Al-Jazeera anchors used the term Islamist regularly but that is not the case. 24.7.141.159 18:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies but if anyone can read Arabic or can search a transliteration, the word you need to searching for is Islamiyya (اسلامي). It literally means "Islamic." Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and other commentators in the Arab world generally use older English conventions where adding the suffix -ist denotes that he is a believer in Islam, hence an Islam-ist. Therefore, Islamic can be replaced by Islamist depending on the usage in Arabic. As I have said before, it is almost impossible to find wide usage of the term Islamist in the Muslim world. The only time it is used is to debunk the implied negative meaning described on these pages. 24.7.141.159 20:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that, first of all, it is pronounced "Islaamee" or "Islamiyy" not islamiyya. - Bassemkhalifa 12:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting enough, but it's an analysis and therefore original research. These sources suffice for Wikipedia's purposes, and we as editors have no business making value judgments about them. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Being able to read another language is not, in and of itself, original research. All I did was read Sheikh Yassin's Arabic and English texts translated by US Government translators and nearly verbatim (short of plagerism) conveyed the idea. Furthermore, Islamiyya has existed as a word for 1,400 years and its translation has existed since the first time Europeans traded with Arabs post-Islam being founded in the 7th century. Merely restating this fact hardly qualifies as WP:OR but ignoring it gives validity to questioning the factual accuracy of this article.

I must disagree on your last point. It is quite obvious that none of the other editors have come forward with being multilingual or having any skill in reading Arabic. This in and of itself puts your POV out of the sphere of NPOV because you are commenting on a non-Western topic without acknowledging non-Western sources due to language handicaps. So far, in this thread, we have learned that in the past 1,400 years Islam has existed, over 1 billion people encompassing a fifth of the world's population do not use the term Islamism. It might be almost non-trivial to do a satistical analysis of how 5 listed sources qualify as an anomoly. Two of the sources are questionable at best and meaningless at worst. Sheikh Yassin's use of the word is intentionally being used by editors here to qualify the definition of this word. Has anyone considered correlation (of a terrorist group using the term Islamism) does not imply the converse is true (Islamism encompasses terrorist ideology)? Ignoring Islamiyya's established definition of Islamic/Islamism is, as I have said before, introducing a factual inaccuracy and ignoring basic English rules. This is the English wikipedia after all, isn't it? I welcome your input and think it is wonderful but in this situation the point must be conceded.

Lastly, we as Wiki editors have an responsibility to evaluate sources. Would we use KKK material to provide a history of non-White races? No and the reasons are obvious. For the sake of disproving Godwin's Law, would we use Nazi material to describe the Jews? No. Although these are tongue-in-cheek examples, they illustrate the judgement calls that are made on a daily basis to provide NPOV material from reliable sources. In other words, we set out to find widespread usage of the term Islamism in the Muslim world as another user claimed. After a full day of searching, we are still waiting for a flood of usage that doesn't exist. Furthermore, Al-Majalla was touted as a Muslim publication in a Muslim country using the term. However, that example failed our basic requirement when I exposed it as being a London-based Arabic newspaper for which Hani Al-Naqshabandi as a former editor-in-chief. As it stands, we must give up this attempt. All is not lost though, mentioning the fact that the term is practically non-existant in Muslim publications from Muslim nations further strengthens the argument of Islamism being a western distinction. Regardless, this article itself qualifies as original research because Wikipedia's definition is being used as the definitive version (i.e. it is the first link on Google searches for "islamism"). Another troubling fact is the Muslim perspective from internal Muslim sources is practically ignored and almost glossed over. This line of reasoning and validation for the term has failed. I suggest moving to another avenue or giving up and agreeing that Islamism, as defined in the contested article, is a Western distinction that Muslims have no established concept of in 1,400 of published material. 24.7.141.159 09:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's ignorance that has you taking this line of reasoning or some agenda directed at making the public oblivious to the meaning of Islamism. Since here in Wikipedia one is obliged to assume good faith, I'll assume it's the former. Above I have posted 4 uses of the word "Islamism", one from Al Jazeera and three from the websites of major daily newspapers in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia. The only times I did not find the usage of "Islamist" in a website from a publication in a Muslim country was when the website didn't offer a search function. 4 examples of evidence that Muslims acknowlege the terminology, and use it when describing a particular group or individual. And those 4 are merely out of the 4 websites I checked, you can search for more and you will find more, IF you're sincerely intending to participate here honestly and in an unbiased fashion. I don't have the text yet, but I know for a fact that Parves Musharraf has referred to Islamists in his speeches too. When I have that I'll produce that as well. Amibidhrohi 14:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ill try to be more to the point this time.The reason we should know what major muslim world languages 24.7.141.159 speaks natively as he said is because he is saying "It is quite obvious that none of the other editors have come forward with being multilingual or having any skill in reading Arabic. This in and of itself puts your POV out of the sphere of NPOV because you are commenting on a non-Western topic without acknowledging non-Western sources due to language handicaps." he keeps saying things like this and that other peoples sources dont really count because they dont have the expertise he does in speaking all these languages, he is only saying trust me they dont have this concept in muslim languages. I think thats called "appeal to an authority" which in this case is himself which is fine but we should know for sure because otherwise someone might think maybe he is just making all this up or something.67.188.110.197

I agree. Anyone else who speaks other languages should go out and verify my claims. Until that happens, I'm the best alternative you've got. 24.7.141.159 03:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

For my own part, I am not interested in challenging your claim, but just in knowing what it is. You’d said earlier that you are a native speaker of most major languages of the Muslim world. That is quite a few languages to know with any degree of fluency, and as 67.188.110.197 mentioned in a roundabout way, very noteworthy. I’m not sure I would agree that Pashto or Kurdish is a major language from the perspective of printed sources (let alone any Berber tongue), but (Anatolian) Turkish, Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Malay, at least, qualify as major languages of the Muslim world by any definition and I, too, am curious as to which of these you are fluent, for the purposes of this discussion.Timothy Usher 05:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As a native Arabic speaker, i can, as above, put in my comments on the language.

I would just like to point some things out, that i think may not have been properly addressed. First, Islamism as it used today, is a term that has evolved but most prominently in modern history as a reaction to trends in though that have only really began to emerge in the late 19th century. This Islamic thought can be said to have been brought to the Arab World with Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, who was born in Iran, travelled, most significantly, through India and then arrived in Egypt. His thought had two main branches. The public branch was a very pan-Islamic anti-collonial nationalism that was based on his perception that nationalism played a very large role on the rise of the European powers. Although he wasnt the first, he was the most prominent.

His private branch of thought, reserved for his acquaintances and other ‘ulemmaa (scholars), he expressed his opinion on the need to reform Islamic theology and culture. He thought that the centuries of the door for ijtihad (lit. effort or interpretation, as in scholarly interpretation of the Islamic law) being closed had led to a hostility to reason developing and thus an inability to cope with modern technology and science. The idea was that this was not a fault in Islam itself, which was infinite and therefore could be interpreted to encompass all worldy advances, but rather in the state of the Muslim world at the time. He envisioned a group of scholarly and political elite, undertaking to and leading reform in the Islamic world.

Even, at this point, it can be labeled Islamism or Islamic Fundamentalism, in the sense that he advocated a return to fundamental principles of Islam.

What is most significant for this article, however, may be the split in thought that happened after him. Two of his friends and students in Egypt, Mohamed Abduh and Rashid Reda (Rasheed, Rachid Reda, Reza) took different sides of shit thought. Where Abduh, was a tireless, non-revolutionary rational reason-based reformer, Reda and others became increasingly alarmed at the secularism that was growing in the Arab world, emphasizing Afghani's positions on loyalty to Islam.

Abduh's thought was again split by his pupils. One group took the ideas on the compatibility between reason and revelation to imply increased reliance on reason, equated with Christian Europe. This went the secularization way. As mentioned, Reda increasingly used Afghani's and Abduh's most stringent ideas. Eventually, this evolved into turning to the thought of the strictest Islamic thinkers ushc as Ibn Taymiyya This movement became salafeyya; noun: salafi. There is often confusion surrounding the connection between slafi and wahhabi Islam. This is probably due to their both referencing Ibn Taymiyya and their common tendency towards a very back to the basics, supposedly puritanical interpretation of Islam.

This barely takes us into the first half of the 20th century. Personally, i'm kind of tired of writing at the moment. Names to look out for include: Hassan el Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood. el Hodeiby; Jama`at Islamiyya (Islamic Societies, which were often armed groups); Islamic Jihad.

There are later interactions between Egyptian violent and/or fundamentalist Islamic groups that evolved out of the line mentioned above and wahhabi Islam. This was most notable when the Islamists were shown zero tolerence shortly after the 52 revolution. This culminated in their descimation in the 60s. Many fled to the Gulf where they spread their ideas. (anecdotal: I went to school in Saudi Arabia and had many Egyptian teachers that were formerly Muslim Brotherhood). I would venture that violence was transfered this way to wahhabi Islam and this is the kind of thought that eventually led to the violent mujahideen groups trained and funded by the US in Afghanistan in the late 70s and 80s to counter communist influence. In the 90s, these same people, including Bin Laden, would turn against the United States culminating in 11 September.

I'm sorry about the lack of sources. I initially intended to say only a few lines. I think, however, i have added much food for research, for those that are interested. I'll keep coming back to see how things go. Bassemkhalifa 12:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Muslim's view on Islamism

Islamism can have many uses. Radical islamism could refer to the ideas of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Regular islamism refers to any political system, which uses muslim standards. The way western nations usually use christian standards. Islamic standars include modest dress, anti-abortion, Islamic economics, islamic-style court system, etc. Several examples would be nations such as Libya, the Islamic Republic of Iraq and Afghanistan, Malaysia, etc.

Libya is pan-Arab and pan-Islamic and is run by a military dictator. Libya isn't a good example of an Islamic country, but the Islamic Republic of Iran is a good example. Though, they do have that position of Supreme Leader which is against the Islamic principle of democracy... Armyrifle 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Prophet was a reformer & he was never a 'rebel'

The article states absolutely incorrectly '..the role the Prophet Muhammad played as "rebel" during his time in Medina:[14]...' The prophet never rebelled in Makkah or Madina. Even when the Muslims were given the worst torture in Makkah for 13 years & even when they were boycotted by Qoreish for 3 yrs in Shaab Abi Taalib until they had to revert to eating tree leaves to survive, the Prophet never instructed any one to attack his torturer. At every available opportunity he would try to deliver God's message to the tormentors of Muslims peacefully with complete forbearance. The question of being 'rebel' is totally out of place as regards Madina. It did never apply there, as the state of Madina was formed by the Pledge of Aqba between the Prophet & the two tribes of Madina namely: Awas & Khazraj & the balance three tribes became party to the state by the latter Saheefa of Madina agreed & signed in 80 clauses clarifying everyone's freedom & obligation to the state of Madina. He was the head of a sovereign city-state there, so case of 'rebel' absolutely did not apply there. It is not POV, it is a lie. A deliberate attempt on part of the writer to misinform the reader distorting real facts & inventing 'fictional facts' for some ulterior motive to dis-inform.This should be clarified as such, so that an uninformed reader is not mislead.ILAKNA (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote is from a notable historian. I don't think you should assume rebel is a pejoritve term. Muhammad was against the leadership of Mecca and in particular its practice of allowing the worship of other gods besides Allah. To say he was a rebel does imply he wanted bloodshed and destruction. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islamism in Contemporary Usage

Apologies if this seems/is too involved, but I wish to put this debate to rest so we can move on.

A search on [[6]] for “Islamism” yields, yielded 2,930,000 hits. Here are the first of these, in the order in which they appear:

1. The wikipedia article
2. [[7]] - “Group of ideologies in Islam that want to use the Sharia to its full extent, meaning that secular forms of governments and institutions are considered foreign to a true Muslim society.”
3. [[8]] - We know his point of view
4. [[9]] - “Martin Kramer: It is Islam reformulated as a modern ideology. Whereas Islam was traditionally conceived as being in a class with Judaism and Christianity, Islamism is a response to ideologies that emerged in the modern West—communism, socialism, or capitalism. Graham Fuller: Islamism is largely synonymous with political Islam—an effort to draw meaning out of Islam applicable to problems of contemporary governance, society, and politics. John Esposito: Islam interpreted as an ideology to support political and social activism. Daniel Pipes: I think we're all pretty much in agreement.”
5. [[10]] - Pipes again
6. [[11]] - A google list of other articles, including Bazm-e-Tolu-e-Islam and Tanzeem-e-Islami, who I imagine would follow you in calling their ideology merely “Islam”. Point being that google uses the term to organize by category.
7. [[12]] - “Islamism is a totalitarian ideology adhered to by Muslim extremists (e.g. the Taliban, Hamas and Osama bin Laden). It is considered to be a distortion of Islam. Many Islamists engage in terrorism in pursuit of their goals.” It also includes this quote: “It is important to emphasize: Islamism is not Islam. On the contrary, it is a perversion of Islam. The traditional religion practiced by most Muslims is tolerant and moderate, an ancient faith with a rich tradition of scholarship. Islam places great emphasis on virtue, charity, and living according to God's will; it is not at all incompatible with political democracy or religious pluralism.” -Jeff Jacoby of Boston Globe
8. [[13]] - Apparently defunct.
9. [[14]1] - “A Sufi response to political Islamism”
10. [[15]] - The Encyclopedia of the Orient again.
11. [[16]] - An article entitled “Understanding Islamism”, by Rami G. Khouri.
12. [[17]] - “A Manifesto against Islamism” by Michelle Malkin.
13. [[18]] - “Understanding Islamism” from the International Crisis Group

etc.

Note that everyone is using this term in almost precisely the same way. Were we to list and link to all the sources that use it, it would be unacceptably long.

In sum, while it is obvious that it is of fairly recent origin in English, supplanting “Islamic fundamentalism” as we’ve noted, and that Daniel Pipes has played a role in popularizing it, Islamism is at this point a term in the English language with a specific and fairly invariable definition. Whether this is “politically incorrect” as you assert is beside the point. As this is an English-language page, we should use it accordingly without unwarranted hedging.

As I recall, this was the heart of the dispute which led to the edit war, and the article being blocked to begin with. This kind of thing should not have been allowed to hold us up.

So I propose that we accept contemporary Englsh usage for what it is, and get to work on the article.Timothy Usher 02:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the last comment I will be writing for the next two days. I have school and other things to do. this dos not mean I will be disappearing, I am just taking a two day break and will be back to talk later. On a side note, my point is that the previous article was just labeling certain groups of people as being Islamist and was omcpletely unsourced. I am just saying the term Islamism should be defined using sources, were it came from, and how it is used today. The labeling of certain groups as being Islamist should not be done. This article should talk about the term, NOT LABEL PEOPLE. I will post up stuff from the actual article when I return, too show you what I am talking about. MuslimsofUmreka 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.Timothy Usher 04:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To end this dispute, tell me if you atleast agree with this

I keep starting my homework but then feel compelled o go near my computer, bu whatever. I am figure that it would be better to end this dispute now. I am willing to end this dispute if you all agree with the following terms.

1.) On the top of the article page, put in italics the following, This page deals with the political term Islamism, this article does not talk about islam, for an article on Islam and Muslim see Islam and Muslims

2.) Cite your sources. In the original article before the edit war it stated:

Islamism refers to anti-secular political ideologies derived from fundamentalist interpretations of the religion of Islam. Islamists generally assert that Islam, as both a religion and a social system, should be practiced as a philosophy by the government. Many Islamists advocate a theocratic political system that can implement legal, economic and social policies in accordance with certain interpretations of Islamic law. This stance is typically considered a form of triumphalism.

The use of the term "Islamism" is controversial. Individuals labeled Islamists often regard themselves as simply observant Muslims and oppose using the term. In contrast, moderate Muslims and liberal movements within Islam generally apply the term to distinguish themselves from groups and philosophies with which they do not identify. However, the term is often misapplied to denote Muslims who engage in violent or insurgent activities.

Instead the article should start as the following:

The term Islamism is controversial. Dictionary.com defines the term as 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. source

However, the term is usually applied to refer to political Islamic movements that are considered to have deviated from the Quran and Sunnah. Daniel Pipes defines the term as, "Islamism is an ideology that demands man's complete adherence to the sacred law of Islam and rejects as much as possible outside influence, with some exceptions (such as access to military and medical technology). It is imbued with a deep antagonism towards non-Muslims and has a particular hostility towards the West. It amounts to an effort to turn Islam, a religion and civilization, into an ideology." source

Others have defined it differently though. "Islamism is a totalitarian ideology adhered to by Muslim extremists (e.g. the Taliban, Hamas and Osama bin Laden). It is considered to be a distortion of Islam. Many Islamists engage in terrorism in pursuit of their goals.” It also includes this quote: “It is important to emphasize: Islamism is not Islam. On the contrary, it is a perversion of Islam. The traditional religion practiced by most Muslims is tolerant and moderate, an ancient faith with a rich tradition of scholarship. Islam places great emphasis on virtue, charity, and living according to God's will; it is not at all incompatible with political democracy or religious pluralism.” -Jeff Jacoby of Boston Globe" (This is what Timothy Usher posted above)

In conclusion, add citations and sources such as that and keep the tone of the article neutral as possible. If you agree to these terms, I am willing to end my side of teh dispute but only if you all agree to the above. Let me know what you think. MuslimsofUmreka 03:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Um. This is no good. Leading off with a dictionary definition is third-grade level composition, and obviously the fact that the term is controversial should not have primacy over the meaning of the term itself. Also, Pipes did not invent the term and you give him undue emphasis without even bothering to introduce his relevance to the reader. Finally, undifferentiated strings of quotes do not really make for good reading and should not form the balance of the introduction. In other words, your writing style is atrocious. Frankly, I think the older text was fine, even on the basis of the critiques you made. I would suggest keeping it as it is. Can I get a what what? Graft 04:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite right.Timothy Usher 04:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt have to be in those exact words, but somewhat similar. I should have said 'similar to' instead of 'should start as the following.' So as of now, no final agreement has been reached and this dispute is continuing. Okay, we'll work on another solution. MuslimsofUmreka 04:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

MOU,

“1.) On the top of the article page, put in italics the following, This page deals with the political term Islamism, this article does not talk about islam, for an article on Islam and Muslim see Islam and Muslims”

I agree that a clarification is in order for those who do not realize this by now, above the article as you suggest. However, I propose the text, “This article is about the political philosophy Islamism. For an article on the religion Islam, see Islam.” Or the like.

The difference hinges on this: the page should not be about “Islamism” as a term, but Islamism as a historical phenomenon. We can mention the origins of the term, debate about it, etc., but this ought not and must not be the focus or theme of the article.

Re the original intro:

“Islamism refers to anti-secular political ideologies derived from fundamentalist interpretations of the religion of Islam. Islamists assert that Islam, as both a religion and a social system, should be practiced as a philosophy by the government. Many Islamists advocate a theocratic political system that can implement legal, economic and social policies in accordance with certain interpretations of Islamic law. This stance is typically considered a form of triumphalism.”

I don’t know why triumphalism is being mentioned here. That sentence should go. Other than that, though we can quibble over points of style, the general thrust seems correct.

“The use of the term "Islamism" is controversial. Individuals labeled Islamists often regard themselves as simply observant Muslims and oppose using the term. In contrast, moderate Muslims and liberal movements within Islam generally apply the term to distinguish themselves from groups and philosophies with which they do not identify. However, the term is often misapplied to denote Muslims who engage in violent or insurgent activities.”

Again, the last sentence seems out of place, and factually inaccurate to boot. For example, Palestinian terrorist organizations are not automatically called Islamist, even though the bulk of their membership is at least nominally Muslim, unless they happen to also be Islamist as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

A section on the relationship between Islamism and terrorism is appropriate, but not in the “term” paragraph.

Re your replacement:

“The term Islamism is controversial. Dictionary.com defines the term as 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. source”

The sentence “The term Islamism is controversial” should open the second or third paragraph, as it did to begin with. Similarly with definitions from various dictionaries.

“However, the term is usually applied to refer to political Islamic movements that are considered to have deviated from the Quran and Sunah.”

Considered to have deviated by who? Many users of the term have no opinion on this, while others are split between saying Islamism is not true Islam, and others who like you say that Islam mandates Islamism.

I’d agree with you that in the quoted instances, there are additional POV’s on whether Islamism is or equivalent to “true Islam” that should definitely not be stated as fact on wikipedia, as we are in no position to issue rulings in this regard. However, it is clear that they are taking the common definition as the starting point for their assertions.

There is seemingly no real dispute here, beyond your objection to contemporary terminology and usage, and the false assumptions you believe underlie it. This is not the place for that debate. It’s quite a shame that the article was editted, and then frozen, for these reasons.Timothy Usher 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright. As long as the article remains neutral and cites sources and gives information from all sides, I am cool with this page being unlocked. An administrator can unlock it now. I am gonna stay away from editing this page and let others do it. I just ask that this article remain neutral and everything be cited. MuslimsofUmreka 12:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can no longer contribute to this forum due to a lack of enforcement of WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY, WP:SOCK, etc. You, your sock puppets (though at least you don't use these on the talk page), and user Hrana98/24.../etc. are free to hack away.Timothy Usher 12:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as at least one of the abusive sock puppets was shown the door - thanks Tom - I am back. Let's see how this works.Timothy Usher 01:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dont Understand

If there is one thing that I do not understand is why are people like Timothy, Kyaa the catlord and others so interested in editing this page when they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Kyaa the catlord lives in calorado according to his or her page and i'm certain there are NO Muslims in that state and there is no threat of terrorism there. The other people know nothing about Islam, nor are they Muslim so I do not see why this topic is so important to them. It doesnt effect them in anyway. The only reason I think of is that they are racist and want to take every oppurtunity too defame Muslims and make them look bad. Please explain to me why this topic is os important to you? MuslimsofUmreka 19:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to edit any Wikipedia article, regardless of their interests. Don't call people a racist because they're interested in this topic. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Katefan0. Your remarks risk offending people, and are not relevant. Please use this page to talk about the work at hand, and not the people who choose to do it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, not that it matters, but all these Colorado mosques are probably going to be disappointed that you don't believe in their existence. Graft 22:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahahahah. No really. Hahahahah. Thanks MOU, you made my day. Kyaa the Catlord 23:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Before he was saying if you move to Ohio youre not a real muslim anymore, maybe thats also true if you move to colorado? I think we should probably wait until he comes back cause he is the one here who knows about these things not us.67.188.110.197

Thats not what I said earlier. I was giving an example of something. Here is what I said, "For example, say you grew up in New York City. Then you move out of New York City to a land far away like Ohio or something. Even though you no longer live in NYC, you label yourself as a new yorker. Then you in turn label those who still live in NYC as extreme New Yorkers. " I was giving this as an example of what modern Muslims are. I was saying that Modern Muslims no longer practice Islam and then they label those who practice Islam as extreme Muslims. This was an analogy I gave with Ohio. The anology was that if a new yorker moves out to ohio, then he no longer is a new yorker. But for some reason he keeps labeling himself as a new yorker. Then he labels those who still live in New York as extreme New Yorkers because they still live in New York. Do you see the analogy? Modern Muslims label those Muslims who still practice Islam as Extreme Muslims. I hope this clears it up. MuslimsofUmreka 00:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

MuslimsofUmreka, I sincerely do not believe you're capable of editing this topic in a non-POV fashion. You clearly have a strong opinion regarding nonmuslims who review this particular topic. The fact that you're questioning one's motives for being here on the basis of their own religious following or location is enough for me to see that you cannot address these discussions here without carrying in your personal baggage. Amibidhrohi 03:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I was born and raised a Muslim and I know from personal experience how that term is used to discriminate against people. Though you maybe correct that I have strong POV with this issue. There are many concerns that need to be discussed with the article. We all agree that the original version, the one before the major edits was no good becuase it lacked sources, citations and it had a strong anti-Islamic bias and was strongly POV from the other side. The term is very broadly applied and it is defined differently by diferent people. The prior version of the article focused on degrading Islam. One thing that is not understood by anybody here is that ISLAM IS INHERENTLY A POLITICAL RELIGION. ISLAM IS A RELIGION MEANT TO BE APPLIED TO GOVERNMENTS. Though the term Islamism has been defined by other people and most of you guys are just reflecting on that. This article is still strongly POV from the otherside. Reagrdless, this is a very controversial topic and i think we should start fresh again. MuslimsofUmreka 04:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is all interesting, but it has nothing to do with the article. Posts to this talk page need to focus on suggestions for changes to the article, or discussions about recent changes to the article. Discussions about how you feel about Islam, or your personal experiences with Islam, or what you think about Muslims who live in Colorado, are inappropriate. Wikipedia talk pages are not discussion forums. Anything that is not directly discussing the article or changes to the article may be removed by administrators. Consider this fair warning. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I was giving suggestions for the article before, but people began attacking me. So I defended myself. But they did not get a warning. But regardless, I think that the current article is very good. Maybe it can be broadened up to include the various definitions the term Islamism takes from different people. Very differnt definitions are applied to the term as shown in the sources. I also think that the history section should be removed. It lists Islamic groups as Islamist movements based on opinion and it has nothing to do with the term. I think that the history section should focus more on the evolution of the term. The different stages it went through, for example, the term was first used in french to just refer to Islam. Then the term disappeared. Then during the 1970s people began using that term to refer to what they refered to as 'political Islam.' Then Daniel Pipes popularized the usage of the term. The article should also include a controversy sectio nabout how controverisal the use of the term is. That is my take on it. MuslimsofUmreka 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Katefan I hope this is at least enough about the article for you not to get mad at me.

It sounds like what Muslim of Umreka is really saying is ISLAM IS A RELIGION MEANT TO BE APPLIED TO WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES. I mean can you really expect that someone will think anything and everything should be ruled by extreme islamic law EXCEPT wikipedia?

He said we all agree that the original version has a strong anti-Islamic bias but I dont think thats right. Maybe it was totally no good but the version now is much worse then that if its possible. its the first thing that comes up on google and its a total embarassment. and the stupidest part is that it sounds like the wikipedia administration choose to freeze it like this to begin with because he asked someone to do this. just because the article made him upset by not being extreme muslim as he would put it. Im sorry but thats true.

Why do you think he will work everything out with people when his new article is up now? If nothing happens he wins dont you think.

You asked what we should do with the article so i think the first thing we should do is go back to how it was before he changed everything to be like it is now. Thats what I think.67.188.110.197

I did it. Now we can change it from here.67.188.110.197

Wholesale reverting is not the way to move forward. It will just get the article locked again, and it won't get you the version you want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Kramer link spam

This article, as is the case with over 30 others, has had an external link added to an essay of Martin Kramer. It has been determined that these additions are link spam. When this article is unprotected could this link be removed. Full discussion of this instance of POV and self-promoting link spam vandalism can be found here Talk:Martin_Kramer#Is_Martin_Kramer_link_spamming_Wikipedia.3F --70.48.241.41 21:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove the protection to the page.

It isn't warranted. Amibidhrohi 05:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. Everybody behave, please, or I'll protect it again. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent change

[19] Do you have a specific source for this? This kind of assertion needs to be sourced, especially if you have something here in quotes. Who's saying what's in these quotes? Please be diligent about sourcing. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Only the part "inherently a political religion" should be in quotes. Here is one source. There are several sources were the above quote can be found. MuslimsofUmreka 21:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a discrete source. Pick one and use it, please. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The rest off what I wrote can also be quoted by Islamic sites. Who believe that in the middle east there should be only Islamic law. MuslimsofUmreka 21:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Islam isn't just one religion in reality. The Shia perspective of Islam differs from the Sunni one, the Salafi Arabic Islam differs from the Sufi-influenced Islam of Bengalis. To make any generalization on what position Islam categorically takes on any issue is wrong. There are millions of Muslims in India, in Turkey, across Europe and the Americas who do NOT believe Islam is inherently political. Do not include your personal perspectives on Islam in the article. Amibidhrohi 23:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: introductory caveat

MuslimsofUmreka, I have changed the introductory caveat for two reasons:

• This article should not be about the term, but about the ideology as a historical phenomenon.
• To say as you did that “this article does not talk about islam” is POV.Timothy Usher 01:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop removing tags

MuslimsofUmreka, I again request you to stop removing other editors' dispute tags. It is not up to you to unilaterally decide that an article is not disputed.Timothy Usher 01:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is now crap. MOUs edits have pretty much destroyed it from the formerly balanced state it had been in and ruined the collaborative efforts we had been making in regards to the introduction. Please cease removing tags, MOU. You label my posting of them as "childish". I find this completely ironic. Kyaa the Catlord 01:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the former extremely racist and biased introduction meant to degrade Islam from the viewpoint of members of the KKK. The article now is neutral and very well balanced. MuslimsofUmreka 01:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I posted the below: "Islamism refers to political ideologies derived from fundamentalist interpretations of the religion of Islam. Islamists generally assert that Islam is both a religion and a social system. Many Islamists advocate a theocratic political system that can implement legal, economic and social policies in accordance with certain interpretations of Islamic law.

The use of the term "Islamism" is controversial. Individuals labeled Islamists often regard themselves as simply observant Muslims and oppose using the term. In contrast, moderate Muslims and liberal movements within Islam generally apply the term to distinguish themselves from groups and philosophies with which they do not identify. While virtually all Muslims regard their religion as a way of life and desire to live in accordance with Islamic values, many Muslims support peace and reject the use of their religion to justify violence, revolution, or radical views."

There is nothing racist, biased or otherwise inflammatory about it, unless you are MOU. I'd like to ask any admins who are viewing this to PLEASE step forward and put a stop to MOU's repeated slurring of my name. Kyaa the Catlord 02:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent revisions

Timothy, I think your revisions are good. I would make one suggestion: The fact that its usage is controversial should most definitely be mentioned in the first paragraph; as it is now it's mentioned way too far down. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 13:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Katefan0. I'll get to work on it some more in a bit.

I can't say I entirely agree that the usage controversy should lead, perhaps that's American-centric POV though. But it if helps NPOVing or even stablizes (imagine that!) the article, it's worthwhile.

One thing I hope to fix is the duplicated Pipes quote, and reorganize things a little if not a lot. He shouldn't be the central focus of this. I just have to think of how to do it. Any ideas on this?

And thanks, Graft, hadn't gotten to that quite yet. Please do continue.Timothy Usher 01:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I can think at this time is changing "Islam refers to" to "Islamism is a controversial term referring to". I don't much like it because it suggests that the article is about the term, a theme which aleady dominates the following paragraphs which themselves were compromises. Islamism is too salient as an observable phenomenon to reduce it to a linguistic debate. Perhaps someone has a better idea.Timothy Usher 03:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there an anti-Islamic bias here?

I open with this question. I have read the article, written portions of it, and I am well informed about Islam and the particular topic addressed here. However, User:24.7.141.159 (and perhaps others) have stated that they believe this article to be clearly "anti-Islamic". For my part, I do not see this. I am aware of several criticisms against the article - the most notable being the topic definition's potential, perhaps actual, confusion of a Muslim and an Islamist. Still, this does not strike me as anti-Islamic, only an area for clarification.

Ignorance seems the root of much bias. Rather than argue with each other, perhaps we can teach one another? I, for one, still have much to learn.

Here is my proposal. Let's take one point of the article - a sentence, phrase, etc. - and look at it. We can ask ourselves: Is it anti-Islamic? Is it justifiable? And so on. I invite anyone to cite from the article the best example of this bias and to briefly explain their choice. Above all, please be clear and brief. The goal here is to make your position obvious, as to a room of trusting students. Please consider that trust. As for myself, I hope to learn something. --Vector4F 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the anti-islamic bias on that article starts right at the beginning, the bare definition of Islamism. Even if that definition is coherrent with original scholars on that topic, this definition is far from how the common public nowadays percieves Islamism. Western media generally only differs between so called "moderate Muslims" and "Islamist" (or any of the other words for it Fundamentalist, Extremist, Radicalist, ...). So public opinion usually understands Islamist as violent Muslim. By expanding that term to anyone who'd like that politics get influenced by Islam, you are peging many people Islamist. How do you call pro-lifer? Christianists? Obviously their religion influences politics, don't you think? Raphael1 20:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-lifer is not synonymous with Christian, one can be Christian and pro-choice and non-Christian and pro-life. As for people who want religion to influence the state, we generally call them fundamentalists and if they are Christian then Christian fundamentalists. IIRC, the parallel with Islamism is Dominionism. This was a short aside, please keep discussion to the article in hand. - FrancisTyers 20:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just editted the article to clarify this a bit more. One may be Muslim and not be an Islamist. One many wish to influence politics with Islam and not be an Islamist. The difference which can be called Islamism is two-fold: 1)particular religious views and 2)anti-secular political views. The influence of religion on government is not what makes one Islamist. The Islamist position is opposed to secularism and favors Islam as a major or dominant philosophy for government. I can explain this further, and would prefer to add more to the article. In short, Islamism is a narrow and specific interpretation of Islam as it should be practiced (including by the government). Islam itself is not so narrow and not always so specific.

Let me address the problem of perceptions. I understand the influence of Western media and the ignorance of most people to these issues. I do not believe that the public has even a working definition of Islamism - I think they have a bunch of suspicions and impressions. I think that makes this article all the more important. Most of the facts about Islamists are not attractive to journalists or bloggers. I think the distinctions here are important and the best course is to address them head on. I do believe the article can be greatly improved in this regard. However, it is a speciality topic and will always remain a bit obscure. --Vector4F 01:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Vector4F, this is the opening paragraph that I would like to use. However I am not committing the change until we can talk about every edit I made. Cool?

"Islamism refers to any political Muslim movement perceived to harbor anti-secular and, consequently, anti-Western political ideologies derived from fundamentalist interpretations of the religion of Islam. Muslims generally assert that Islam, as both a religion and a social system (Deen), should be practiced as a philosophy by the government. Many Muslims advocate a theocratic political system that can implement legal, economic and social policies in accordance with certain interpretations of Islamic law. The term Islamism is a means to define any group of Muslims that stray from widely held customs and traditions of European populations. The use of this term is typically considered a form of triumphalism by Muslims." (forgot to sign) 24.7.141.159 12:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi 24. The problem here is that the last half of what you've written above is not true. It doesn't 'define any group of Muslims that stray...', rather it defines isolated, fringe groups. It isn't used to paint great swaths of the Islamic world, it is used to define specific, non-mainstream groups. I think you are failing to understand that it isn't being used against the Islamic world as a whole, but instead, to define and categorize certain isolated groups that are truly outside of the norm.

Also, I believe that part of the problem is that Islamist redirects here. I believe that the common usage of this in the media is the first definition, not the one used by moderate and liberal Muslims to describe themselves. Personally, I've never heard a Muslim refer to Islamism in the manner described in the second paragraph. Perhaps this is not a common usage in the modern era and the term has been hijacked? Kyaa the Catlord 12:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the version of 24.7.141.159. Raphael1 13:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on a rereading of the text of the article, I support it with the following suggestion. I think that the last line does not need to be limitted to "by Muslims", it can be considered triumphalism by nonmuslims as well. I think the statement is stronger actually without "by Muslims" since there are nonmuslims who are supportive of the moderate and liberal wings who use "Islamism" in a positive sense. Kyaa the Catlord 13:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Kyaa, can you please modify wherever you feel the changes need to be so I can see your version (use strikethrough formatting if you can when you delete text). Out of respect for Vector4F, I really want to get his/her input as well before doing anything. I do agree with you that the term is meant to distinguish between the "Western-philic" and "Western-phobic" ideologies, but the danger is that we paint all Muslims with one broad brush. My thinking is this: somehow I want to convey to people that although a majority of Muslims adhere to the idea of "deen" where politics, economics, etc are under the umbrella of Islam, that the current usage of Islamism is more geared towards any group who claims to be Muslim but not exactly in line with contemporary Western beliefs. In other words, the initial paragraph should distinguish between Bhutto (as discussed above) and whoever we, as Americans, are not supposed to like today. Prior versions of the article, as per my reading, seemed to erroneously suggest that Islam is more like the modern day practice of Christianity in the United States (and Western world) where separation of Church and State is a hallmark. I think all of us have touched on these points before in some way on these talk pages.

What do you think about removing the last sentence completely? I do agree that many nations, religions, and groups are guilty of triumphalism but does it need to be overtly stated? Does it add a bias from a Muslim prespective? Can we modify the second paragraph to more accurately convey this point in a more NPOV way? I'm open to seeing what you think a better version of the 2nd paragraph would be. Someone should page Vector4F so we can get his thoughts on this as well. Ahhh, Wikipedia at its finest. I like this. Good work team. 24.7.141.159 17:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm considering bowing out completely. I've found that my understanding of this term was limitted to the popular usage of "Islamist" in the media and I'm not sure that my grasp of it is strong enough to understand the second, more historic meaning. On the subject of triumphalism, I believe that taking it out completely may be the best course of action. It seems rather superfluous. I wonder who originally added it and what their reasoning behind it was, but without that knowledge I feel it doesn't fit in the introduction at the very least. I try to remain neutral on Islamic issues, I'm a student of ME history and it is impossible to do that without having some perspective on Islam and the role of it in politics. :D But I agree, this is how WP should work. :D Kyaa the Catlord 19:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think another thing we need to take into account is the source of these cries. Do they add to the article? Do they attempt to improve and remove the POV from the article or do they simply have a history of going to any article which deals with the topic of Islam and Islamic movements, political or otherwise, and complain? Is there an agenda they are pushing? These are necessary questions when we deal with these topics. Kyaa the Catlord 07:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey folks. Throwing in my $.02 on 24's comments, above. I'm uncomfortable with the intro as written because while Islamists may, in fact, be anti-Western and anti-secular, this is really more a result of their particular attitude towards proper governance, political philosophy, etc. In fact, 24's version seems to villify "Islamists" way more than the current version does. Personally, I think we should couch our writing so that "Islamist" is defined more with respect to their orientation in the Muslim world, rather than with respect to the West. Obviously the latter is an important part of how certain Islamist philosophies developed, but as above, I'd characterize the difference between Bhutto and Islamists as "progressive reformist Muslim" vs. "regressive reformist Muslim". (Not actual proposals for words in the article, just illustrative.) Bhutto wants to make Islam grow and seeks to interpret its principles in new and creative ways. Most Islamists think things were perfect in the time of the Prophet and we need only return to the principles and way of life practiced in that time to create a harmonious society. Both of these are perfectly consistent with the idea of deen and look to Islam as their main inspiration, but they're definitely distinct, and in a more important way than mere anti-Western sentiment encapsulates. Graft 20:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Bhutto? ... may refer to any member of a prominent political family in Pakistan? Raphael1 22:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Graft, thanks for the comments. Can you please clarify what this means:

..."Islamist" is defined more with respect to their orientation in the Muslim world..."

The reason I am asking for clarification is because I don't seem to understand how that would change the introduction and, consequently, the implied meaning of the term. I'm a native speaker of most of the major languages in the Muslim world and I have no knowledge of a word that Muslims use to describe the phenomenon of Islamism as defined on these pages. I have searched dictionaries and consulted five professors on this topic via telephone--none of whom could turn up anything. Would it be a stretch for me to conclude the label of Islamism is a Western term used to describe certain movements in Muslim communities? I don't think it's a stretch.

Most Islamists think things were perfect in the time of the Prophet and we need only return to the principles and way of life practiced in that time to create a harmonious society."

True, but so do most Muslims who don't necessarily fall under the category of Islamist. I could give some examples of extremely Western-philic and "moderate" thinkers who say the same thing. So then what is an Islamist? 24.7.141.159

This discussion of anti-Islamic biases was moved from the archives back to the talk page. User:Pecher removed this posting and another pro-Islamic editor has been banned. It leads me to conclude that Muslim wikipedians and pro-Islamic wikipedians are not welcome on these pages. With that said, I would like to restart discussion on this topic. 24.7.141.159 09:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hrana98 etc., I like Pecher before me have removed your recent post because the material is outdated, it is already archived, and as far as I can tell, you are violating WP:POINT.Timothy Usher 09:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not outdated until the anti-Islamic biases are addressed. You've already helped to ban one pro-Islamic editor. Are you now saying this article is completely neutral and address concerns of Muslim editors?

It looks like a few journalists have been contacted by MOU (or some other editor) who are very intereste in how we in Wiki land are handling Islam-related articles. It is in our collective best interest to follow every policy and tread carefully. 24.7.141.159 09:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So what exactly are you trying to say? Especially with that "tread carefully" part.

I'll wait to see what others have to say about this...wouldn't want to banned like Kyaa. For my own part, in addition to the points I've raised on WP:ANI re the Deuterium sockpuppet, the basic problem with your narrative is that there is no obvious point of action re the article. Timothy Usher 10:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If it wasn't clear before then let me say it again. I don't want Wikipedia to get more bad press by all of us not following Wiki policies. I don't think any Muslim editors are left here and the debate is clearly still raging. This development worries me dearly.

I've seen your post over at WP:ANI trying to ban my IP along with multiple other users. The most tragic part is attempting to say that I'm user:hana98. Please don't lecture me about sock puppets. The fact is you've been challenged on every claim by me and instead of arguing me on facts, you've resorted to trying to ban all those disagree with you.24.7.141.159 10:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

First off, MOU isn't banned. He's been blocked for a week for engaging in personal attacks. Second, we're trying to create a NPOV article, not one that is favorable to either side. Islamism does not equal Islam in all cases. "Islamist" is used by the media to specify between moderate and liberal Muslims and Islamic causes and those which are more fundamentalist, extreme and potentially dangerous. I thought we were all on the same page that there are multiple meanings to Islamism, at least we were before MOU came and started unilaterally altering the article, even after we'd agreed on the talk page that this required discussion. All we want, imho, is to get back to where we were before he started "warring" with us over this page. Is that too much to ask? (removed that, this is actually where we'd started moving forward. Is that your intention 24? I'd like that, personally.) Kyaa the Catlord 12:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Kyaa... toally agree with you on moving forward. I'd like to add a few more users who showed up recently into the same boat as MOU for being unproductive non-sense creators. I'm hoping those people leave soon because they have a propensity for dragging out things ad tedium. 24.7.141.159 13:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

My definition of Islamism would simply be : Any individual or group actively working to implement sharia. The words "Sharia" and "Khilafa" go hand in hand with the concept of Islamism. While the vast majority of Muslims seek to enjoy their lives in a modern environment, there are those who romanticize over the 6th-14th century and wish to bring a 'revival' of that form of government. On the matter of anti-islamic ideas, it's a legitimate concern considering the huge role Daniel Pipes plays in this article. I'm a Muslim myself, though also a secularist through and through. I don't think there's a single intelligent Muslim on earth who could go through all Daniel Pipes has said and done and not see him as a bigot with an axe to grind with Islam and Muslims as a whole. I've read his works, spoken to him personally too. To have his view on Islamic systems highlighted would be like having some Nazi take the stage on a lecture about Zionism and Jewish heritage. Amibidhrohi 19:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A Muslim? My apologies for questioning your motives earlier. Have you read "Shari'ah: The Islamic Law" by Abdur Rahman I. Doi? The book talks about the applications of Islamic Law and gives ample Hadith, Qur'anic verses, and historical background. It is a must read for anyone considering talking about Shari'ah. I would have to say that ideas presented in the Qur'an and the mature interpretations starting around the late 7th to early 8th century are congruent to many Western beliefs. Furthermore, the application of Shari'ah in the Ottoman Empire is also very congruent with our western ways. For example, women given the right to own land and the right to divorce in the 7th century was unheard of in Europe. Hell, women couldn't vote until the 19th Amendment came about in 1920. Reading the history of how close it came to being defeated while Muslim women were granted these rights based on Islam nearly 1300 years earlier. How then can you state that Shari'ah goes hand in hand with Islamism? 24.7.141.159 02:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"My definition of Islamism would simply be : Any individual or group actively working to implement sharia." Too simple a definition. Some aspects of Sharia are implemented in the secular government of Singapore, especially with regard to family issues (marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc.). By your definition then, one might argue that Singapore's government is Islamist and that, of course, is not the case. Dunner99 14:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi, it'd be difficult not to agree that Daniel Pipes and his view is given too much prominence here. However, note that it was [User:MuslimsofUmreka|MuslimsofUmreka]] who did this[[20]], [[21]] to give the impression that Pipes is the main one who uses the term Islamism, and to thusly discredit it by association. My recent edits removed the duplication of his quote, and pushed it down into the Islam and Islamism section.

Just a quick note, Daniel Pipes is a scholar considered very radical in his interpretation and writings about Islamism. He is the one who first suggested surveilling Muslim students on campuses. His writings in academic work is highly controversial and he can thus not be used as a reference for a neutral definition. Regards, --217.227.31.81 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence, "Other Muslims take offense to usage of the term, particularly when used to imply that all devout Muslims are Islamists." However, on second thought, maybe I'm just not aware of this phenomenon. I can only say I've never heard this suggestion prior to this discussion page, when MOU and User:24.7.141.159 started saying precisely that, and in MOU's case was offended by the term by this logic: because all true Muslims must be devout, and because devout Muslims *must* be Islamists, the term Islamist can only be a derogatory term for Muslims in general.

I've also removed the sentence from the earlier version, "A whole layout of an Islamic government can be found in the Quran and Hadith", as earlier discussed this is not the case. For example, what is the established principle of succession?

User:24.7.141.159,the introductory paragraph you'd propoesd the reposted thread above is already in the article with only minor differences. Likewise, I'd taken it upon myself to remove the "triumphalism" remark, which seemed out of place. What else about the article does this old thread address?Timothy Usher 22:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Any feedback on how the re-organization is proceeding?Timothy Usher 22:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling all Muslims Islamists, who advocate a system replacement of secular state laws with Islamic law, is IMHO not precise enough as it would include peaceful groups, who see Islam as a way of life with social and political aspects. Raphael1 02:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are saying that there is a difference between holding that Islam has political aspects, as would presumably any moral philosophy, or seing it as a way if life, as would any devout believer on the one hand, and asserting that Islam as the foundation of legitimacy and Sharia as the supreme law, as do Islamists, on the other, I would absoultely agree. Several editors who've contributed to the article and to the talk page have denied the validity of this distinction.

However, the peaceful (or not) disposition of a group is not relevant to describing their goals.

One of the problems I have with the current "Islam and Islamism" section is that the POV equating Islam and Islamism is given much more prominance, because there was more text here to begin with. My main task was to restore a coherent flow to the narrative (we've a long way to go) and eliminate redundancies, rather than to add new text, so this problem wasn't addressed. Another is that the placement of Pipes' view can be seen either as giving him the last world or marginalizing him as a lone dissenter.

Other than omission, is there anything else about the article that gives this impression of equivalence between Islam and Islamism? By all means, let's change it.Timothy Usher 02:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Islamism

Though I am not familiar with this word (This word is foreign to me; I think westerns have invented this word). Can anybody let me know the Islamic term for that?

The definition "Islamism refers to anti-secular political ideologies derived from fundamentalist interpretations of the religion of Islam."

Does this supposed to refer to Iran's government? Please help me understand what is going on here. --Aminz 00:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, westerners invented this term, as is prominently discussed in this English-language article. And you're correct that the Islamic Republic of Iran is considered to be Islamist, as is also discussed in the article.

As per your edit summary, is the lack of reference to the views of Abdolkarim Soroush the reason for the tag? Would you be willing to add it to an appropriate place in the article?Timothy Usher 00:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Timothy.

Well, then 1. It should be mentioned in the definition that westerns have invented this term. And 2. I see both “factual and neutral problems” with the usage of "anti-secular" in the definition (I need to go now but will copy/paste the Soroush’s quote in order to show why I disagree). --Aminz 01:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In the first portion of the third subparagraph of the introduction (which was written by a currently blocked poster who changed it unilaterally against consensus but we've pretty much given up fighting over it at this point), it states the origin of the term as being first used in France in like 1970. So, I think it is clear that it was a Western creation which has been borrowed by certain Muslim groups. Kyaa the Catlord 07:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How many other articles are titled with terms of western origin? Should we thusly mark them all?Timothy Usher 08:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I will get back soon(swamped now), but just wanted to mention something. Before that, I should say I am quite ignorant about politics and my argument is just based on my common sense. It may be very well wrong. I believe we need a brief section titled "criticism of the term Islamism". It seems to me that the name chosen for this term, its definition and the meanings it carries, is carefully chosen in order to Humiliates Islam (plus have some political misuses). I believe it has been originally used to humiliate Islam and later politically misused. I will write more about the clever thought behind this invention and how it can be politically misused. It seems to me that those who invented this term (or better say those who tried to define it and re-used it) were genius guys with dishonest intentions. But I am no good in politics and not competence to give any opinion here. --Aminz 09:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I should add, to be fair, it seems to me that there are also good thing about invention of this term. --Aminz 09:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The term is derived from the Arabic word 'islamawiyya' if that helps, alternatively Islamic fundamentalism is 'al-usuliyya al-islamiyya'. --217.227.31.81 16:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borderline vandalism

Irishpunktom, your most recent edit is absurd. You say see talk page, but I've not seen you here.

As I've posted on your user page,

"...is a broad undefined term that usually relates to..."?

1) There's no problem with broad terms; many articles have them 2) the term is not undefined, as the article makes clear 3) usually? Can you explain where and when it doesn't? 4) please actually read the article 5) there is this tab on the top of your WP interface, between the "article" and "edit this page" buttons, called "discussion".Timothy Usher 09:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't undefined, footnote 6 links directly to a definition of it. I'm not sure why IPT is trying to start an edit war, but I ask him to please refrain. Kyaa the Catlord 09:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

there is no definition. From Users talk page: There is No definitive definition for the term. The IHEU defines it as "A fundamentalist Islamic revivalist movement generally characterized by moral conservatism and the literal interpretation of the Koran and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all aspects of life" - the WSJ decribes it as "An obscure noun that seems to be derived from Islamist." which it describes as "A person or an organization using Islamic religious precepts to form a political ideology." - Now, Princeton University describes Islamist as "an orthodox Muslim" or "a scholar who knowledgeable in Islamic studies".

So, in short, no, there is no definition for Islamist, as I have made clear by my alteration to the introduction. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because the definition is undergoing evolution does not make the term undefined. Yes, it is rather murky, but the core of the concept remains the same. Muddying it further using the language you have reverted to three times now does not help. Kyaa the Catlord 09:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I said it is broad and undefined, because it is broad and undefined. You could have added evolving, I wouldn't have minded, but to call it vandalism is ridiculous. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling it vandalism exactly. I'm just not agreeing that there needs to be a single definition of a word agreed upon for it to be defined. Words, especially -isms, tend to be murky and convey multiple meanings depending on context. In the context of this article, I believe that it doesn't need to be reinforced that the word is still undergoing change in the first sentance. It IS noted that the usage is controversial in the introduction and perhaps this could be expanded to include something about how the word is still in the process of being 'defined'. Words are never concretely defined, especially in the English language. Kyaa the Catlord 09:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: I like your current change, actually. Kyaa the Catlord 09:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see if it lasts. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

IPT, it's an affront to common sense to first give several examples of definition of "Islamist", and then say that there is no definition of "Islamist". Pecher ^Talk 09:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

An affront?! A definition is a defintite, concise explanation of the term or word, or whatever. Considering the cited examples come to differing conclusions, it cannot be said the term is defined. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well put, Pecher. As I posted in my response to IPT on my talk page,

Yes, Islamist can also have the Princeton university meaning, as in all scholarship, e.g. Arabist. The article makes it clear we are talking about a political philosophy, not a scholarly emphasis. By WSJ do you mean Wall Street Journal, or some dictionary? Your examples are specious. But even so, one could not conclude that Islamism has *no* definition, could we? The only words without definitions are those that don't exist.Timothy Usher 09:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed hybrid intro

Islamism refers to a set of anti-secular political ideologies derived from conservative religious views of fundamentalism. Islamist ideologies hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state according to certain interpretations of Islamic law.

Kyaa, Irishpunktom, Pecher, what do you think?Timothy Usher 09:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I like IPT's current version. I think that we do need to make mention of sharia in the second line, as an example of a system that Islamists would like to impose on societies. Kyaa the Catlord 09:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

added. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I too like IPT's current version. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the changes just made. It implies that Sharia is a monolith. Thats why I said using rather than according to. If according stays, we are obliged to add "an Interpretation of islamic law". --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I appeciate the basis of your objection, but I'm not sure how "using" is any better in this regard. Most differences here can be dealt with in the Sharia article. Timothy Usher 10:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Using implies they are using the sharia as a source, which all interpretations do, however according implies that there is one Sharia, when we know there are many interpretations. Compare Morocco to Saudi Arabia. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don’t hear the difference in sense you’re suggesting, though perhaps other editors will. Of course you’re right that there are many interpretations, but most differences can be dealt with in the Sharia article, except those directly related to Islamism; e.g. interpretations by which the state ought be secular, or not, as Aminz touched on earlier.Timothy Usher 11:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want the nature of the interpretation dealt with. Different Islamists use different interpretations, the point is that Sharia is not a Monolith.. I'll just add it, remove it if needed. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.Timothy Usher 13:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Kyaa

Kyaa and Timothy, I just realized I was misreading the passage I was editing. Sorry! I like your new suggestion Kyaa. --Aminz 10:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Timothy got it better than I did though. :D I'm still not sure the grammar is quite right on the first line of that paragraph. Kyaa the Catlord 10:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, see [22].Timothy Usher 10:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed and Islamism at odds with Wikipedia Islam Project

Islamist ideologies hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state according to its interpretation of Islamic Law.

That sentence is in the introduction and is at odds with Wikipedia articles on Islam and Sharia.

From Islam: Islām is described as a dīn, meaning "way of life" and/or "guidance".

Islamic law covers all aspects of life, from the broad topics of governance and foreign relations all the way down to issues of daily living. Islamic laws that were covered expressly in the Qur’an were referred to as hudud laws and include specifically the five crimes of theft, highway robbery, intoxication, adultery and falsely accusing another of adultery, each of which has a prescribed "hadd" punishment that cannot be forgone or mitigated. The Qur'an also details laws of inheritance, marriage, restitution for injuries and murder, as well as rules for fasting, charity, and prayer.

From Sharia: For traditional Sunni Muslims, the primary sources of Islamic law are the Qur'an, the Hadith, the unanimity of Muhammad's disciples on a certain issue (ijma), and Qiyas (drawing analogy from the essence of divine principles). Qiyas — various forms of reasoning, including by analogy — are used by the law scholars (Mujtahidun) to deal with situations where the sources provided no concrete rules. The consensus of the community or people, public interest, and others were also accepted as secondary sources where the first four primary sources allow.

Maybe the best definition is of Islamism is contained in the Islamic fundamentalist article: Islamism is ... in conflict with the secular, democratic state, based upon the widely supported Universal Rights (as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)).

The fact is Muslims describe their faith as a deen (which includes politics) but so do Islamists. Does this mean that anyone Muslim proclaiming political ideologies sourced from Islamic scripture is automatically an Islamist? No it should not. However, this article claims that to be true. Rewording the first phrase of the introduction so it is not at odds with the Islam and Sharia articles is a prudent first step. User247 12:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to include the citation request. If any editor feels the above statement to be true, then we need a mutually agreed upon citation from an impartial scholarly source. Furthermore, the articles on Islam and Sharia need to be amended properly. As it stands, this article is implying incorrectly that all Muslims are Islamists--this is wrong! Lastly, if you haven't figured it out yet, I've made me a user name finally. User247 12:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And the action item is...? Irishpunktom wrote this, to general consensus. You keep coming back with these broad criticisms which boil down to, you believe this article ought not exist, because Islam is the same as Islamism. That is one opinion. But your approach is functionally much like trolling, in that you wish to engage endless and unresolvable discussions which have no practical application to the article. Indeed, you were reposting large portions of thread from the archives so as to flood the talk page. Meanwhile your edit isn't even addressed, much less supported, by your comments here. Please, let's focus on something more specific and actionable. What about the article do you believe ought be changed, and how?Timothy Usher 13:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, that it should be mentioned in the definition, that the term is generally being applied to radical resp. extreme groups, who promote acts of terror. Raphael1 13:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this the case? If so, how should we mention it?Timothy Usher 13:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we discuss your first question first. I just did a google news search and looked into the results: PipeLineNews.org calls the Muslim American Society a Islamist Pressure Group and defends their claim by calling them an arm of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. The Khaleej Times calls the 950 ex-prisoners members of an Islamist group, because they were accused of terrorism. Monster and Critics discusses the terror threat posed by Islamists. The Jerusalem Post claims that al-Qaida is intimately engaged in this Iran-led Islamist alliance. The The Sun news reports the warning to expect more radical Islamist-inspired terrorism in Europe in coming years. I could cite many more news articles. Indeed I haven't found one news report, which is not linking Islamism to Terrorism. Raphael1 14:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Turkey's Justice and Development Party isn't linked to terrorism, while the contemporary incarnation of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has at least publically distanced itself from terrorism and committed itself to peaceful change in Egypt, yet these are commonly described as Islamists. On the other hand, groups such as PLO. PFLP (IRA, etc.) were never labelled as Islamists, although they are terrorists. You are right that a very conspicuous number of Islamist groups are also terrorists, but they are independent concepts.Timothy Usher 14:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It is usually aimed at more radical, terrorist groups. The problem is that it is also being used by, um, less kooky Muslims to define themselves. We need to make them stop doing that! *grin* Kyaa the Catlord 14:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is the most dangerous of all the terror groups according to Red State. Besides it's interesting that Tariq Ramadan a grandson of Hasan al-Banna a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't get a visa based on a Patriot Act provision that bars entry to those who endorse terrorism.[23]. Can you show me some articles claiming the Turkey's Justice and Development Party (AKP) are islamists? Besides, I've never claimed, that terrorism and islamism are synonym terms, since terrorism is not at all exclusively connected to Islam. Raphael1 15:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just found out that Graham E. Fuller, a former Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council at CIA , defines the term (Islamism) broadly enough to include the Turkey's Justice and Development Party (AKP). He states:

First we need to define terms. What is an Islamist? I define the term broadly—in keeping with the reality of the phenomenon: An Islamist is anyone who believes that the Koran and the Hadith (traditions of the Prophet’s life, actions, and words) contain important principles about Muslim governance and society, and who tries to implement these principles in some way. This definition embraces a broad spectrum that includes both radical and moderate, violent and peaceful, traditional and modern, democratic and antidemocratic. At one extreme it includes Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda; on the other, the ruling moderate Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey, which seeks membership in the European Union and cooperates with Washington on key aspects of regional politics. The moderate side of the spectrum vastly outweighs the more dangerous, violent and radical segment, yet it is these latter radical forces that constitute the focus of most governments and the media. Islamism also includes fundamentalist views (literalist, narrow, intolerant) but does not equate with it. If we are to understand the long-term issues of Islamism and democracy, we need to look at both “good” Islamists (from the viewpoint of Western policy makers) as well as the “bad.” There is an ongoing struggle among them.

[...]

The prognosis for political Islam under these conditions—indeed for almost any form of moderate politics—is not good. Moderate voices, Islamist or non-Islamist, dare not speak up in the mood of rising radicalism. Indeed, we might speculate that at least two things must occur before we can hope to see any longer-term trend of moderation within Arab Islamist politics. Only after existing regimes fall, or throw open the political process, will there be a chance for genuinely open and democratic orders to emerge. But this in itself is not enough, for the mood of the new, more populist regimes will initially be anti-American. The external sources of radicalization must also be curtailed. This means an end to the radical right-wing policies of the Likud in Israel and a just settlement of the Palestinian problem, a departure of American troops from the region, and an end to the more intimidating and broad-brush anti-Muslim discrimination that has unfortunately come to mark the new global alert against Muslim terrorism.

Since the radical/dangerous islamist forces constitute the focus of most governments and the media, I'd say we shouldn't use a definition which embraces such a broad spectrum. Raphael1 17:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot agree with the above coment, not least because I find it contradictory. Fuller's quote is clear that he defines "Islamism" broadly to include all groups, "radical and moderate, violent and peaceful, traditional and modern, democratic and antidemocratic", that seek to establish sharia as a basis for governance. With that view in mind, I can see no reason for jumping to conclude that we shouldn't use a broad definition of "Islamism" because "the radical/dangerous islamist forces constitute the focus of most governments and the media"; the latter contention is unsourced and represents an editor's personal opinion, which is not relevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You can also take a look at Martin Kramer's essay on the evolution of the term; Kramer gives a more detailed and nuanced view, but the thrust is the same: any political Ismaic movement is usually described as "Islamist". So, I believe we should go with the academic flow in this case, just like in others. Pecher ^Talk 17:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That "the radical/dangerous islamist forces constitute the focus of most governments and the media" is not an not an unsourced claim, but is part of Fuller's quote. Raphael1 18:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced and unsupported is the conclusion that all others are not called "Islamists". Pecher ^Talk 18:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should I disprove my own claim? I've already cited plenty of souces, that prove my claim. If you think, that the term "islamist" is generally applied to peaceful, modern and democratic groups, please try to find some sources for your claim. Raphael1 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, The reason islamism is often associated with terrorism in the news is because Islamists often resort to terrorism in the reality which is the subject of that news, and because acts of terrorism tend to garner far more coverage than do Anatolian parliamentary maneuvers. I'm fine with pointing out that the term is often associated with terrorists, but not in a way that suggests that it's being unfairly misused. I've never seen a non-islamist terrorist organization labelled as islamist by virtue of terrorist acts alone. Have you? Nor does this observation belong in the introduction, as it is simply not part of the definition.Timothy Usher 21:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

None of your sources. Raphael1, says that the definition of "Islamist" is restricted to those resorting to violence, whereas both Fuller and Kramer apply the term "Islamists" to all political Islamic groups, whether violent or non-violent. Pecher ^Talk 21:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Even Mr. Kramer states, that "Ultimately, of course, the problem of these (islamist) movements was not what they were called. It was what they did. And as long as these movements continued to spawn, nurture, or tolerate the most violent forces in contemporary Islam, they would bring stigma to whatever term was applied to them." Therefore whatever term is applied to "them", it's definition should contain a reference to their "violence". Why should we use Voltaires definition from the eighteenth century, when nowadays general usage of the term is always connected to violence? I don't think, that a non-islamist terrorist organization would be labelled as islamist by virtue of terrorist acts alone, but I don't think any peaceful democratic political movement gets labelled as islamist either. Where is your source, that non-violent "anatolian parliamentary maneuvers" are called "islamistic"? You haven't found a single source, which calls any non-violent group islamistic. IMHO only secular fundamentalists would define Islamism in a way it embraces all Muslims. Raphael1 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are some sources, Raphael1, which refer to the Turkish party as Islamists, indeed this is far and away most frequently-used description:

[24][25][26]

[27][28] [29][30]

Those are fairly disparate sources, wouldn't you say? In case you are wondering how I found them, try [31]Timothy Usher 23:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked your sources? Most of them return 404 errors. Only IslamicSydney claims AK to be a islamist party. Slate ends with: "After all, not only have Turkey's Islamists strained to avoid confrontation with the military and committed themselves to upholding secularism, but the officers have also retained their historic role as the guardians of the Turkish political order." which seems rather odd. According to the BBC Mazlumder, an Islamic organisation that helps turkish women say that "since the headscarf ban was enforced, more than 10,000 women in Istanbul alone have been excluded from universities. These women and their families expressed their frustration in general elections in 2002, when they voted Turkey's AK Party, which has its roots in Islamist politics, into power." The Middle East Institute reports, that "Rusen Cakir, a senior correspondent for the Vatan Daily, concluded that the AK Party has radically separated itself from the Islamist ideology that represented previous Islamist parties." Freedom House reports as well, that "The AK Party appears to have abandoned its former Islamist aspirations." There are many more sources, which describe the AK party as secular, and the fact the headscarf ban in turkish universities is still in place seems to prove that. Raphael1 00:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The new sources are very weak too. Buzzle.com states: "Despite describing itself as "conservative democrat" and denying that its political credo is dominated by an Islamist agenda, the AKP's advance is seen by some as a threat to Turkey's secular state." Some? Who? Even the "Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs" states: "Actually, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a former popular Islamist mayor of Istanbul and the current party leader, made great efforts to distance his party from its more radical Islamist predecessors in Turkish politics, and he disclaimed any Muslim agenda." The photius.com link, which seems to use the CIA factbook as its source, supports my claim again, because they link islamism to violence again: "Several Islamic groups have claimed responsibility for these deaths, among them the Islamic Movement Organization, about which little is known. Another obscure group, composed of local Islamists linked to the Iranian government, has targeted external enemies of Iran. One of the worst incidents of religious violence occurred in the city of Sivas in 1993 when religious fanatics set fire to a hotel where a well-known author and translator of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses was staying." Raphael1 01:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

They were chosen precisely in order to demonstrate that I'm not cherry-picking; they are a more-or-less random collection of the first things that come up on Google. As there are 2,180,000 hits for these words, I've not the time to share them all. The photius.com link does not remotely support your claim:

"A legal, nonviolent Islamic political movement exists in Turkey. Its main locus is the Welfare Party (Refah Partisi--RP; also seen as Prosperity Party), which obtained the votes of 16.9 percent of the electorate in the 1991 general elections and captured 19 percent in the municipal elections of 1994. The Welfare Party also won mayoral contests in Ankara, Istanbul, and twenty-seven other large cities. The party stresses economic goals; to cast its appeal in religious terms would bring it into conflict with the constitutional ban on the organization of parties on the basis of religion, ethnicity, or political ideas considered authoritarian."

Again, Islamism is linked to violence only when Islamists resort to violence. It's hard to see why you think this unfair.Timothy Usher 01:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should read your quote again. It doesn't say "nonviolent islamist political movement" but "nonviolent islamic poilical movement". I've never asserted, that the media only covers Islam with a reference to violence, even if Hollywood does that.Raphael1 15:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Your point. I'm so used to seeing this party called Islamist, I misread it in this instance. However, the other links call them Islamists as demonstrated.Timothy Usher 23:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading again, it's not in the quoted text, but the title of the quoted section is "Islamists".

Well, including Mr. Fuller only 3 sources call them islamist while the 6 other sources don't. Is it possible, that you are a little bit biased? Raphael1 10:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If I'm biased, it's only because I've heard the term used on many an occasion, used it myself, and there never seemed any doubt about its meaning until I came upon this talk page. That is bias of a sort, but one I can't really do much about.

I'll admit it's come as a surprise to see what opposition it engenders. Not unprecedented, though, as a Muslim associate of mine bristled at it, because it included the term Islam - but not because he felt it *was* Islam, as with several editors which have contributed substantially to this page. There is opposition, then, from both the liberal and conservative sides, for completely different reasons.

In the meantime, I'll re-read those cites to evaluate your 3:6 claim - as I'd told you, and as I'm sure you've verified, they're from the first two pages of google results, not cherry-picking from a clique of scholars - and post some more not too long from now.Timothy Usher 10:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Rechecking as promised, every one of the linked sources refer to the Turkish party as "Islamist" at least once.Timothy Usher 21:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So what you are claiming then is that if a Muslim follows Islam then they are automatically an Islamist. Following from your logic, if Muslims ignore large chunks of their religion can they be removed of the shackles of such a negative term. These ideas need to be examined further because they are completely wrong. The very fact that Martin Kramer is a neo-conservative "Israeli-American" who supports activities such as Campus Watch puts his commentary on one extreme that MUST be balanced out. His commentary is skewed which is confirmed by his collective works and associations with Islamophobes like Daniel Pipes. Please provide a reliable source. Lastly, my original points demonstrating contradictions amongst Wikipedia's Islam, Sharia and Islamism articles is not being addressed. User247 23:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I found an interesting comment by John Esposito regarding Martin Kramer which futher solidifies that he is not a reliable academic source:

"The problem is that people do not address the question of who are the people behind this? What about Kramer who has Israeli citizenship and spent his career at Tel Aviv University running the Moshe Dayan Centre? That is fine with me. But if you look at the track record of the likes of Kramer and Pipes, do they ever criticise the Sharon government? I would say that they are not arguing for what is in the best interests of America. They are, rather, arguing for what is in the best interests of Israel." ~ John Esposito

Furthermore, Martin Kramer himself claims to not be a journalist on the talk page of his Wikipedia entry. Tell me again why an obvious Islamophobe's opinions of Islam have any relavence? The only way I'm going to buy this is if the current editors proclaiming Kramer as a reliable source on Islam will claim Hitler as a reliable source of Judaism. Let's get back to the contradiction of this article. User247 23:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a truly stupid comparison unless Hitler had a super-secret PhD in Jewish Studies. One thing that is certain however, is that Nazis and Islamists are unreliable sources on Nazism and Islamism respectively. Re-posting a quote I gave on the Kramer article's talk page of Esposito engaging in a spurious and possibly anti-semitic ad hominem attack on Kramer, tends to destroy your credibility. Armon 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam event horizon

Does anyone else feel that the article is approaching the Wikipedia:Spam Event Horizon in terms of all the external links and further reading? Some of them may be good reads, but wikipedia is not the place for listing worthwhile web pages and books. Thanks, Andjam 11:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] definition of Islamism

According to Menahem Milson, a professor emeritus of Arabic Literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the terms "extremist Islam," "militant Islam," "radical Islam," and "Islamism" are synonymous.[32] Raphael1 14:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Life isn't fair. Labels are unfortunately a convienient way for homo sapiens to clearly define one another in an understandable way.

If I am from Europe, I'm European. If I'm from Asia, I'm Asian. The derogatory nature of such labels is unfortunately a by-product of society rather than the implied meaning of such a defining fact.

A fundamentalist, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, Tibetan, et. al., retains such a label. It is lamentable that such a label offends the bearer, yet does not eliminate the basic meaning. If one wants to explain their stance, feel free to write an unbiased explanation. During this process we must make sure to properly define this term so it is consistant with the concepts of Islam such that we do not cast an entire religion into the way we would like it to be or wrongly equate its followers with terrorists. If one wants to delete this article on the basis of a word alone ignores the purpose of a dictionary. This article cannot be used as a soapbox to redefine and attack Islam as this would fly in the face of the ideals of Wikipedia.

Please note that User:User247, who neglected to sign above, has taken User:141.156.178.63’s comments [33] and interpolated his own to alter the intended meaning of the passage. [34].Timothy Usher 00:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved above text from top to bottom. It isn't polite to add things to the top of the page. Kyaa the Catlord 19:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion goes into the wrong direction; Just because someone believes in an alternative state or political system, it doesn't mean that he is militant. There are many orthodox Jews who believe that it is sinful that a Jewish state was created before the occurance of the messia. This led to bomb attacks in the 1930s against Zionist establishments - by orthodox Jews. Yet it doesn't mean that today orthodox Jews in general support the destruction of their own state, even if it contradicts their religious faith. Neither would probably anyone argue that fundamentalist Christians argue to overthrow the state just because they find the government too little Christian. Equally, Muslim fundamentalists can have a different opinion about how they would like to be governed without finding it acceptable to kill people for it. Furthermore, fundamentalism is only one aspect in Islamism. There are many modern Islamists, whose ideology, e.g. that of participating in democratic elections, is rejected by some fundamentalist groups. Islamists aren't all the same so it is wrong from my point of view to generalise them into one extreme category. --Arabist 17:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very Weird

I have seemed to have lost any interest in editing this page. Very weird. I think its mostly because it brings out the worst in me. So I am officially dropping out from editing this page. MuslimsofUmreka 03:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed totallydisputed tag

I removed the tag because reading over this page, the issue was clearly that some editors deputed the term "Islamism" period. That doesn't warrant a disputed tag on the article, especially as it clearly states that the term is controversial. If anyone can point to specific cases of POV in the article or specific factual errors, please state them here so we can fix them, rather than reinserting the tag. Armon 12:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you scroll back up? Do you want me to copy the text from above? Raphael1 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There's reams of discussion of stuff that's already been addressed -if you think there's more to do, or some are still unresolved, please just bullet point them here, and refer to the discussion section so I can re-read what I missed. Then hopefully we can fix them. Armon 16:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The actual definition of the word is simply wrong, which has not been addressed. Islamism is not a set of political ideologies derived from the conservative religious views of Islamic fundamentalism. Btw what actually is a "conservative view of Islamic fundamentalism"?!? The current definition equates strict followers of Islam, who see their religion as Deen, with terrorists. As I've said before Islamism is rather synonymous with extremist resp. militant Islam, who's followers resort to violence. Raphael1 16:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that this phrase "derived from the conservative religious views of Islamic fundamentalism" is unnecessarily complex and possibly inaccurate. Derived from Islamic fundamentalism avoids taking a position as to whether these views are conservative.Timothy Usher 21:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, now it reads: "Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from Islamic fundamentalism." According to WP:NOR fundamentalism is not synonymous to "deeply held beliefs" (even though the word stems from "fundamental"). The Fundamentalism article says:

"Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of the religion. It has especially come to refer to any religious enclave that intentionally resists identification with the larger religious group in which it originally arose, on the basis that fundamental principles upon which the larger religious group is supposedly founded have become corrupt or displaced by alternative principles hostile to its identity. [...] In Islam they (fundamentalists) are jama'at (Arabic: (religious) enclaves with connotations of close fellowship) self-consciously engaged in jihad (struggle) against Western culture that suppresses authentic Islam (submission) and the God-given (Shari'ah) way of life.

Can anyone find a quote, which proves that Islamists resist identification with Ummah? Btw. there are contradictions in what WP sees as fundamental to Islam: Fundamentalism states it's the Qur'an and Hadith but Islamic fundamentalism states it's the Qur'an and Sunnah. Can anyone enlighten us, what islamic fundamentalists solely believe in? Raphael1 21:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, both should read Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah, or simply Qur'an and Hadith. It's hard to believe this was anything other than an oversight in both cases. Surely it is not a "contradiction" - unless there is an editor who specically meant that Islamic fundamentalists do *not* think the prophet's biography important, while another insisted that Islamic fundamentalists ignore the prophet's sayings? That seems unlikely.Timothy Usher 22:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It now appears you've added the contradiction tag on the basis of (trivial) contradictions between Fundamentalism and Islamic Fundamentalism articles, not between this article and another.Timothy Usher 22:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've included the contradiction template to the Islamism and Islamic Fundamentalism, because they are both refering to the other article in its definition. But if A uses B in it's definition and at the same time B uses A, neither A nor B is defined. Raphael1 22:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not correct. You are applying the logic of proof to semantics.Timothy Usher 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it not? Are you ready for a test? "Dachtel" is an austrian word for "Ohrfeige", and "Ohrfeige" is the german word for "Dachtel". Do you know what I'm talking about? Raphael1 23:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If the definition of a word consists *only* of another word, you are right that the definition would be vacuous. However, this is not what the article says. If it read "Islamism is defined as Islamic Fundamentalism", you'd have a point. In this case, the solution would not be a contradiction tag, but to propose that the articles be merged.Timothy Usher 23:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Still the sentence "Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from Islamic fundamentalism" doesn't make sence, if "Islamic fundamentalism" gets (even partially) defined by Islamism. Raphael1 23:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To say that doesn't make sense is too sweeping. But I'm not sure why Islamic fundamentalism would be defined as Islamism. Perhaps there is a problem in the Islamic fundamentalism article. I'll take a closer look.Timothy Usher 00:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So if islamic fundamentalists are enclaves self-consciously engaged in jihad (struggle) against Western culture that suppresses authentic Islam and Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from Islamic fundamentalism, why doesn't the definition of Islamism include a reference to the "struggle against Western culture"? Raphael1 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should, as this does seem to be a common thread. It does. Read the whole article.Timothy Usher 22:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It does get mentioned in a quote from Daniel Pipes in the "Islam and Islamism" section, but it isn't included in the articles definition. Raphael1 22:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

See also the "History" section. Perhaps it should be included in the definition, though I think it rather implicit.Timothy Usher 22:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic fundamentalism

I've moved the discussion here, as the previous section was getting visually confusing. The relevant part of Islamic fundamentalism reads as follows:

• It describes the beliefs of traditional Muslims; that they should restrict themselves to literal and traditional interpretations of their sacred texts, the Qur'an and Sunnah (since they view these as "fundamental" to Islam). By extension, fundamentalism may include a variety of religious movements and groups in Muslim communities which may be entirely apolitical. An example is the Tablighi Jamaat, a missionary-like organization whose main goal is to increase the personal piety of its members. Islamic fundamentalism thus describes an Islamic conservatism which forms part of the spectrum of modern Islamic societies.

• It describes Muslim groups which advocate Islamism and the replacement of secular state laws with Islamic law, also known as Shari'a.

There is no problem here vis-a-vis the Islamism definition, as fundamentalism is presented as a more general term which includes a focus on personal practice rather than political ideology. Islamic fundamentalism is said here to *describe* Islamism (among other things), not to *be defined by* it. Those are logically inverse concepts: if A describes B, B can (at least in part) be defined by A. The sentence "Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from Islamic fundamentalism" could perhaps be profitably rephrased but makes perfect logical sense.Timothy Usher 01:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You have skipped the first sentence of the Islamic fundamentalism article, which reads: "The term Islamic fundamentalism is primarily used in the United States, Europe, and Australia to describe Islamist groups." which doesn't make sense if "Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from Islamic fundamentalism." Raphael1 02:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I did. It wasn't deliberate. Though there's certainly much that can be improved in Islamism - critics have focussed on the introduction and definitions etc., when as Aminz pointed out, there's a large article beneath this which needs vetting - Islamic fundamentalism is a bloody mess, and confusing (it's Islamism, it's not Islamism, but sometimes it's Islamism...).Timothy Usher 05:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree, that article is a mess. Perhaps we should just merge it with this one and note that it was the predecessor term for Islamism. Armon 05:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kramer's article [here], the current definition of "Islamism" started out as a way of avoiding the term "Islamic Fundamentalism" just as we're now seeing a push to use the term "political Islam" instead of "Islamism". In any case, your concern that "Islamist" should only be applied to violent movements doesn't work because, a) Islamism is a political philosophy NOT a methodology and b) there is copious evidence to show that the term is applied to groups based their political philosophy -regardless of whether they are "violent". For example, the FIS was an Islamic movement/political party long before the Algerian government cancelled the elections they would have won. See also: [[35]] [[36]] [[37]]. Your other point of concern is that the definition "equates strict followers of Islam, who see their religion as Deen, with terrorists" -if they share the same political philosophy, differing only in their methods in achieving it, then they are Islamists. Think of communists -some are revolutionary, some use the political process. Armon 05:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't resist to chime in here: My rule of thumb in distinguishing and labeling movements as 'islamist' or 'fundamentalist' has been this: Like atheist and agnostic, which are similarly often confused in public discourse, one can be:

• a) Islamist fundamentalist (IF)
• b) Islamist non-fundamentalist (InF)
• c) Non-Islamist fundamentalist (nIF)
• d) Non-Islamist non-fundamentalist (nInF)

But first, 3 more concepts:

• the (secular, more or less) modernists (M)
• the mainstream religious establishments, usually under the umbrella of the state (E)
• the (tribal, archaic, custom-based) traditionalists (T)

E (usually nInF initially) will frequently pool with M to fight back T, the underlying default scenario in much of the muslim world. (development model). If E and M are relatively successful in fighting T, T may turn into nIF to immunize themselves against further onslaught, by seeking the protection of the nInF E. If M's project is frustrated, parts of M may turn into InF, abandoning M, and try short-circuiting nInF to become the new E. Thus, nIF is a protective move by T against M and E. InF is a secondary tactic of frustrated M, designed to make themselves the new E. InF will (when it is not yet E itself) frequently try to enlist the help (in overthrowing the old E) of T by posturing as, or becoming IF, thereby turning T into IF (where T was nIF before). Simultaneously, to defend themselves against a potential InF/IF alliance, the nInF E will try to ally themselves with T by turning nIF, or with InF by becoming InF themselves, thus turning E against M in both cases.

Again, in a nutshell:

• Fundamentalism (nIF) is a defensive movement against an encroaching state or elite. It wants the "Deutungshoheit" - the power of interpretation - of morals, customs and laws (including, but not resticted to Islam itself) removed from the elite, and put back into the hand of of smaller, self-regulated, traditional entities. As such it is often, but not necessarily "more reactionary/islamic/whatever" than the interpretation of the elite, but it is almost always simpler (because it is more literal and less elaborate). It is instinctively anti-modern.
• Islamism (InF) is the offensive movement of a frustrated, powerless elite against the incumbent elite, which it tries to replace. Disenchanted with the project of modernity (either as such, or by its diappointing results) it seeks restauration of a (semi-imaginened) glorious, more Islamic past, and then a take-off from there, which makes it, ironically, a very modern movement.
• An Islamist fundamentalist (IF) movement marries the modern, revolutionaly zeal to overthrow the old elite with the anti-modern instinct to stop once it's done, which makes it a hybrid creature: Once the new elite has had its revolution into the past, it's supposed to step down and dissolve. The take-off plan into the future is cancelled.

I admit thas this may be a bit 80s and 90s slang, but I've been 'out of the loop' for a while, and definitions may have shifted in the meantime. But the above will be widely recognizable for anybody familiar with (European) ME studies at the time.

ALL of the 4 flavours a)-d) above of course ultimately envision unity of state and Islam. There just is no "render untu Cesar..." in Islam. The nInF faction of course, is only muted in this regard. To remain part of the elite, they have to accept the powers-that-be, and sing to their tune. In a nIF (and a successful IF) system the state more or less disappears, so that the traditional actors will hold both secular and rudimental religious powers. In an InF system, the new elite will hold both powers, or will - more realistically - employ the old religious E to continue elaborately safeguarding the religious sphere according to the new framework.

ALL of the 4 flavours a)-d) above have at times engaged in violence against opponents (as has basically every group you care to mention - e.g. vegetarians) but none of them can be defined by doing or not doing so, because all of them could conceiveably continue to exist as the discernible groups they are, without ever engaging in violence again.

I don't mean all this as a piece of original research. Rather, if you look at a broad spectrum of literature on the subject (like the Chicago Fundamentalism Project and other major players in academic ME stuff) this is the common denominator that will emerge. Many journalists will just use whatever crosses their mind first: Islamism, Fundamentalism... all part of a soup they don't undestand. And people like Pipes or al-Banna jr. are just mangling and re-interpreting perfectly established concepts for political lobbying purposes. The article should not give undue weight to their ideosyncracies. Azate 22:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A serious, insightful and thought-provoking post. Much of what you say is fairly self-evident; however I've a few questions and possibly, objections. Before posing them, I'd like to make sure I'm understanding you: can you give examplars of flavors a-d?Timothy Usher 02:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am against merging (for reasons above, etc.) We should also try to close the merge tag since it's been on for quite some time. gren グレン 14:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To do List April 21

(started by Armon please add some more)

1. Nonviolent Islamists? see: #Citation_needed_and_Islamism_at_odds_with_Wikipedia_Islam_Project

[edit] Warning, incoming!

MOU's broken his word. Be aware that any edits in the near future are most likely going to be transient unless they meet his POV. Kyaa the Catlord 22:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: On my talk page he has reaffirmed his commitment to resist changing this article. Kyaa the Catlord 22:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

MuslimsofUmreka wrote, "The term itself is considered to be very controverisal. Most eduacted people avoid the term."

The first sentence is already in the article, first sentence, fourth paragraph, where the controversy is specified, although it certainly benefit from better citation. "is considered to be..." is weaselly. Finally, you shouldn't say that educated people avoid the term where you really mean that they "should" avoid it. "Islamism" is hardly a word one is likely to hear too much in less-educated circles. Your addition is thus, at least, inaccurate.Timothy Usher 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, MOU!

I'd be the first to admit that the article needs a better representation of your POV. However, I don't think the problem to be the introduction.

Here's something we might agree upon. This sentence in the fourth paragraph, "Islamists themselves may oppose the term because it suggests their philosophy to be a political extrapolation from Islam rather than a straightforward expression of Islam as a way of life," badly needs a cite. The "Islam and Islamism" section also needs cites. I can't think of a better person to add them, and associated material, than you, as this has been what you've been saying all along.

What do you think?Timothy Usher 05:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I'll get started on it in the morning or later on in the week. I'm a little bit tired and sleepy now. Its almost 2 am, were i'm at. MuslimsofUmreka 05:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Moderate Islamist of the Comoros

Dunno if this is appropriate or helpful at all. But this[38] article shows a democratically elected moderate islamist, who "would not outlaw the famous Comoran lavish wedding ceremonies or force women to cover their hair". Another thing worth mentioning is that he doesn't think, that the "overwhelmingly Muslim Comoros" are "ready to become an Islamic republic". Finally, the sub-header states that he is "seen as a moderate Islamist", but it does not state who "sees" him that way. On the other hand, his political opponents says "he is an Islamic extremist".

Can this article can be used in this article at all? It is quite ambiguious, and any conclusions drawn from this article could be seen as OR (I know that what I just concluded was in itself borderline OR, if not obvious OR). Maybe I should make a WP profile. Iafrate 10:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly Off Topic

The article Islamic State is in a deplorable condition at the moment. I heaped some jumbled brainstorming text excerpts on its talk page for future expansion. Will work on it later, but I'm no expert, help welcome. --tickle me 13:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Little Info

Whoa! Where's all the stuff about terrorist bombings? This is a major part of Islamism/Islamist Fundamentalism and it's not here. Can someone provide more information on this and some links. (Anonymous User) May 24, 2006

[edit] Ambiguous Definition

Ummm.. it is well known that the Koran advocates an entire system including Government. All people that follow the Koran (i.e. Muslims) believe this. I don't understand what the differentiation between "Islamic" and "Islamist" is other than I hear the latter tossed around by elements of the media to somehow denigrate those to whom they are applying the latter label as somehow not being 'true muslims' (?) So in usage it is not a matter of being a "fundamentalist", it is a matter of someone whom the speaker feels is not a true Muslim. This really needs to be clarified AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ARTICLE. Not that it would somehow rob me of a right to an opinion, but I am not Islamic/Islamist, Jewish/Judaist, or Christian/Christianist. Sarastro777 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your bolded assertion. Islamism does not pose the question of who is and who is not authentically Muslim. It poses a question of socio-religious existence - of what an authentically Islamic society is and what such a society has to do with a given Muslim. The question of identity is secondary to the condition of being. --Vector4F 16:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence doesn't make sense to me, even though I have read it five times. Please rephrase. Secondly... "..authentically Islamic society is.." this is my point the word makes a judgment about whether someone is 'authentic' follower of Islam or some fundamentalist pseudo-"Islamist." That's going to always be in the eye of the beholder. Typically we accept anyone that professes to be a follower of Mohammed as a "Muslim" as similar to "Christian" is a follower or bleiever in Jesus even though there is wide variation in exact belief. It becomes laughable to start labeling people as "ists" when we don't see them as authentic because they vary against our conception of what is authentic belief (which includes a socio political outlook in the Koran) or not. I note the many people linked to this article are done so because the editors are trying to discredit them as somehow less than authentic Muslim. Sarastro777 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You're focusing on identity, which is not what Islamism seeks to discern - i.e. Islamism is not centered around the question "who is a Muslim?". I never mentioned authenticity in the context of an individual Muslim, but in reference to a society and the relationship of a Muslim to that society. This distinction is very important.

Islamism is concerned primarily with the socio-political existence of Muslims - their society, government, and so forth. "What sort of relationship should a Muslim have with their state?", for example. Authenticity is not debated in the context of an individual and their identity - it is debated in a much wider scope. The existence of a Muslim - a Muslim's being, as it were - is not centered on themselves. An Islamist critique of the Western nation-state model, for example, might conclude that such a model is inherently self-centered and too individualistic. So the argument might go, the effects of such a nation-state model would be to ultimately erode Islam and make it an accessory - a mere identity, perhaps. You see here how identity politics - as Westerners often indulge in - is typically condemned by Islamists. Islamists are very focused on the contexts in which Muslims live.

Now, as to the issue of labeling people Islamists and this term being confusing. The labeling of people as Islamists was taken up first by non-Muslims and later "non-aligned" Muslims to describe certain political interpretations of Islam and those who advocate them. These interpretations are deeply connected to specific places and times, but for some reason, have managed to evolve outside their original setting (some of Qutb's work, for example). Islamists do not use this label that we give them. When a Westerner labels someone an Islamist, that is not to say they are any more/less a Muslim. That is not even the issue. The label is a descriptive term that identifies that individual as participating in activities or adhering to ideas which fall under the general category of "Islamism". Again, the label is not a religious qualification - not even among most Muslims. The label is rooted in Western scholarship, while the phenomenon being labeled is non-Western. --Vector4F 20:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the extra info. I guess I still don't see the real difference between an Islamic person and an "Islamist" person. The article does not convey this clearly. As of my last reading, the differentiation of 'fundamentalist' was mentioned. I don't see how this clearly differentiates one from the other. If this neologized word warrants an article then I would think this could be explained simply in one sentence or two, at least so that the casual browser could understand. Detail obviously to follow.

I think part of my confusion is that the last paragraph starts "When a Westerner labels someone an Islamist... that identifies that individual as ... under the category of Islamism." That's really circular logic, so I am not able to grasp this differentiation. This needs to be made clear in the article in order for it be rigorous and understandable to other not familiar with the term. Sarastro777 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this Islamism a combination of "Islam" and Fundamental"ism"? That would certainly make sense whether or not you agree with the usage of the word, at least I could understand what it means. Sarastro777 21:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried my hand at editing the article, but was rebuffed. So I've stepped back from editting, as there's no point in doing a half-job (in my mind). It just makes things more confusing for readers. When my research finalizes a bit more, I may put up some documents elsewhere on the Internet.

What is Islamism? It is specific interpretations of Islam that advance political theories, related to certain places, times, and people. These appeared shortly after the introduction of Western-style modernity to Muslim-dominated societies. The classic cases are Egypt, Turkey, and Iran, where Islamists still operate politically and have great influence. However, other traditionally Islamic countries have been influenced by events and thinkers from these countries, as well as contributing on their own.

Honestly, don't focus too much on the exact label. There are many labels by which Western scholars distinguish this phenomenon. The most common is poltical Islam (though this sounds a bit non-descript, which is why media outlets don't use it), followed by Islamic radicalism, Islamic fundamentalism, and Islamism.

"Is this Islamism a combination of 'Islam' and Fundamental'ism'?" No, the linguistic device of "ism" in *this* case hails from the Western study of the Orient (Orientalism). It's just a legacy.

Now, there is the other question of whether or not Islamic fundamentalism is Islamism. Yes and no. Fundamentalism (the word and idea) comes from the 20th century effort by conservative North American Christians to defend certain religious tenets in the face of liberal Protestantism and rising skepticism. The term fundamentalism has been applied in more general terms to mean a religious interpretation that is literalist, absolute, and effectively non-rational (that is, reason is *not* the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not right). Western scholars usually consider Islamic fundamentalism to be any interpretation of Islam that fits this general template - some scholars are more particular than others. Almost all Islamists (groups and thinkers) have been fundmentalists and the basic theme in Islamism is that religion is central to social life and should set the values which regulate other things (like the state, education, etc.). Hope this helps. --Vector4F 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is by far the most useful base i've seen yet. I think someone should expand from here, using a little more sourcing. I think it is key to mention several factors: 1. Islamism is used to refer to groups that are generally political or have political aspirations or ideals. I prefer the term political Islam over Islamism to refer to these groups. I think it helps move away from the media's attempts to sound epic. 2. Reformist Islamic thought that began in the 19th century was by and large a reaction to the West. Or rather, colonial Christian Europe's rise as opposed to the Islamic empire that was long past its several primes. 3. The original reformist ideas balanced reason and religion whereas later branchings led to the emergence of secular ideas on the one hand and puritanical, "fundamentalist" thought (that also split off to include violent and non-violent branches) on the other. 4. It is important to incorporate the acual ideas and thought of the thinkers like Afghani, Mohamed Abduh, Rasheed Rida, Hassan el Banna, Qutb that led to the emergence of a wide range of ideas that are now labeled "Islamism". I think part of the reason for so much controversy is the fact that these people's ideas, though supposedly related, can be very different and all seem to conveniently fall under the same sensationalist label: Islamism. Bassemkhalifa 09:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed and POV tags replaced

Concerns in Talk:Islamism#Citation_needed_and_Islamism_at_odds_with_Wikipedia_Islam_Project were never addressed. The article still has those same glaring errors. User247 21:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This article will remain a POV always. It divides Muslims and according to this article every religious Muslim is Islamist. There is no doubt that Islam is a way to spend life and a Deen. It means if someone say so he is fundamentalist, Islamist and promote Islamism. These are the ugly words invented by West. ---Faisal 09:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're making a logical error. You state that all Muslims believe the same thing (e.g. Deen), but this does not mean that all Muslims live in the same way. The concept of Islamism is not an assertion about religion or religious "authenticity", but about various socio-political applications of religion. Any competent Islamic jurist, imam, etc. would be able to see this difference - this is, afterall, the theoretical basis for Fiqh, Tafsir, and the like. The label of "Islamism" does not make a metaphysical or universalist claim about Muslims, but merely classifies certain social theories. This isn't Orientalism. --Vector4F 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The mere fact that this article is at odds with the Wikipedia Islam article is enough reason to doubt all the work that has been put in. This has been argued on the talk pages and all the archives repeatedly but let me say it one more time: Islam is not a religion as defined by the standards set in Christianity. In fact, Islam is a way of life that encompasses necessary guidelines in all spheres of life--up to and including socio-economic applications. To claim anything less makes the editors of this Wikipedia article look ignorant and biased in pushing the watered down image of Islam the West would like to impose on all Muslims. I'm also bewildered that you seem to want suggest that Islam, as a religion, is defined by how individuals choose to practice it. It would be far more prudent for people like you to dive into the Quran and Hadith as they are PRIMARY sources from which to write a proper article about what Islam really entails. Only then will you realize Faisal's argument is correct: every religious Muslim is Islamist. By the way, why are there no proper academic sources cited from both the Islamic world and the Western world? Let me guess, people like you are going to cite Islam-hating folks such as: Robert Spencer, Martin Kramer, Daniel Pipes, etc? Sad indeed. 24.23.59.7 07:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I asserted only one position: 1) Not all Muslims apply their religion in the same way. 2) Therefore, classifying different applications is warranted. To disagree, one of these must be wrong. Either the observation (1) is wrong or the conclusion (2) is wrong. If you are saying the conclusion is wrong, then you should give some reason *why not* to classify different ideas and movements according to their interpretations. But to do this would be to suggest that all the classifications of Islamic thought (developed by Muslims) - from Qur'anic commentaries to juridical schools - are wrong and should be removed.

This is the only argument I am posing. --Vector4F 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to us to determine what Islam "really" is. Find reliable academic sources saying what you want to say, and let's add them to the article.Timothy Usher 07:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting recent articles in The Nation

The Nation, May 15, 2006 issue, has two articles that may be of interest to those working on the present article, especially since both are (vaguely) book reviews and hence point at a lot of sources.

• "Behind Enemy Lines" by Raffi Khatchadourian looks into books that document Osama Bin Laden's writings, interviews, and pronouncements.
• "From Piety to Politics" by Mahmood Mamdani looks at the interaction of Islam and politics from the time of the Prophet Muhammad forward, and the many rival traditions of interpretation of Islamic law.

Online at [39] and [40], respectively, but I think you need a Nation subscription to access them.Anyway, should be available in any decent U.S. public or academic library. - Jmabel | Talk 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salafism/Wahhabism

Very simply, these are NOT the same thing. At all. They may have similiar beliefs and goals, however Wahhabism developed in the 18th century Arab Peninsula (what is now Saudi Arabia). Salafi thought came to prominence much later (in the 20th century). Bassemkhalifa 11:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, even Islamism, Salafism, and Wahabism are not the same thing. Islamism is a general term, which incorporates a variety of groups and streams, many of which contradict and hate each other (for instance, look at the relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two supposedly Islamic states). Salafism is an ideology of turning back towards the examples of the Prophet Mohammed and the first four caliphs, but in a more radical form than mainstream Muslims (who after all would also all support the statement that the Prophet Mohammed is a model for all Muslims), which often implies that salafis do not pray with other non-Salafi Muslims. Wahabism is a special stream in Islamic schools of thought, mainly present in Saudi Arabia (and hardly anywhere else), interpreting Islam in a way many Islamists elsewhere find quite distorted. Regards, --217.227.31.81 16:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SCOPE & CONTEXT

I think the current problem is that there are people like me who are writing articles and want to put radical islamist groups into a link. We want to have a term that means "Those that are against the West and that call for the Destruction of Israel. Basically, they are Fundamentalist Islamic terror groups such as Al Quaida, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, PLO and the such. People are telling us not to use the word Islamist, or as I've tried in the past, Islamofascist, but apparently, that's not good for many of you. It's not Islam groups which has replaced several of my links in the past, because Islam groups could be a local non-profit organization that helps disabled children. What word to use if not Islamist? We tried to use terrorists but you've taken that out of the vocabulary. Don't say Palestinian Militias because it doesn't accurately represent their background or intentions as stated in their various charters.

[edit] Anti islam comments by Netaji

Please check Netaji 's anti islam comments on my talk page. [41] and here[42]. Synopsis- "There is only one kind of Islam. The kind that blows things up" and " I'm not upset about fundamentalism in Islam because there is no fundamentalism in Islam. Islam ITSELF is 'fundamentalist', in the sense of Intolerance, Slaughter, Looting, Arson, Molestation of women, ie I-S-L-A-M." Haphar 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And this is relavant to this article how? I have not seen this user editting here or otherwise active in discussions relateing to the content on this page? Kyaa the Catlord 23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Haphar's comments are unacceptable to this group. That is so true and we all know it: See the theocracy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Islamic theocracies are geniunely like that. They hang and stone people for gay sex under Islamic law, enough said.

[edit] Clean This Junk Up

This article is an embarrassment. It's like an Onion parody only more boring. It's repetitious and full or useless filler:

"Some western countries consider theocratic philosophies a threat to their status as secular nation states..."

"Some Muslims disagree with the ideologies and activities of those identified as Islamists..."

Tell us something we don't know!

[edit] The Problem of Placing Western Terms on islam

Fundamentalism, Islamicism, Jihadist, Islamofacist.....

All of these terms are made up by Western ideology to represent or misrepresent Islam. As such, they are inaccurate to say the least. If I could get some of the Arab speaking Muslims to give us the Arab term for Islamism we could shed some light on the issue. I doubt that this will happen because they is no such word in the Islamic lexicon. These articles should state clearly that these terms are a Western construction, rather than an Islamic one.

The problem is ... well there's a number of problems but first off, what name do you give the political/religious movement of maududi, qutb, khomeni, turabi and others? They are not all of the same theological school (Khomeini being shia) but they share ideas:

• They all believe islam is a political system in competition with socialism, capitalism, etc.
• they all believe the west is waging a war against islam,
• They all believed that shariah law would cover all aspects of life.
• they all have issues of some sort with traditionalist shuyukh/clerics/mullahs/fuqaha.

What do they call themselves? Usually they say "We are Muslims! Just call us Muslims!"

But this doesn't distinguish them from all the other traditionalist or modernist or reformist or whatever Muslims. And since they all (Islamists) have major ideas in common, somebody is going to give them a name. Islamism, ending with "ism" has a nice symmetry with other political ideologies ending in ism.

Sure the followers of these ideas object to being called "Islamists" or "Political Muslims," but if you believe Western conspiracies against Islam, ipso facto you're going to oppose any name Western authors/commentators/scholars give your movement because .... they're waging war against Islam so this must be part of it.

"Somebody" is going to have to give them a name? This idea sounds suspiciously like the mantra of the Colonizer to seeks to "civilize" the Colonized. Thus, they adopt this "father knows best" attitude and prompted usurps the voice of Colonized people. Khomeini et al do possess the ability to name themselves and their movements. As an English Major, with an interest in Post-Colonialism, it is not to hard to see that the belief that certain elements of the West arewaging a war on Islam may not be too far fetched. How many times have we heard of the need to democratize the Middle East? Of course, you could always discount that notion as a conspiracy theory. But if we follow the ideas of certain Marxist theorists such as Althausser, we can see that ideologies are constantly clashing.

An English major! I'm impressed! A Post-Colonialist too! Perhaps you can take a little time out from waiting on tables to answer the question posed.

There is a Movement. It gives itself a name - Islam. But that name is already taken. Taken by a much broader entity that is a religion. So those outside the Movement do not use the name it has given itself. In fact others are concerned by the Movement's implied (and sometimes stated) belief that people who consider themselves Muslims, but who disagree with the movement, are not Muslims (elsewise it would make much sense to call yourself movement Islam)

So try answering: A) Is it arrognant and colonialist, etc. to give a movement a name when the movment's own name doesn't is confusing/inacurate/generally problematic?

B) Is it not the people who have decided that THEY are Muslims and those who disagree with them are not who are arrogant? And not the ones trying to figure out a name for "Muslims"? --Not an English Major

If you think that terms such as Islamist are innocent in creation, consider the term Fundementalist, which is now employed solely to describe Muslims who do what? Follow the fundementals of their religion? Does that mean that the fundementals of Islam are backward and primative and evil? Then again, I guess it is only a term!

"now employed solely to describe Muslims"?? Are you sure? Googling "Sikh fundamentalist" I get 171,000 hits. Christian Fundamentalist gets 5,890,000 hits. 3,540,000 hits for "jewish fundamentalist." The last two are both more than the number of hits for muslim fundamentalist - only 3,380,000 hits.

And so we could discuss the terms such a Jihadists, who apparently like to blow themselves up to gain access to 70 virgins. I wonder, have not Muslims and Muslim scholars explained the concept of jihad to the Western World? Of course, they have! They have stated that the highest level of Jihad is the fight against one's own self....to live a virtuous life. This knowledge is available in libraries across the world and online. And yet none that is ever mentioned mysteriously...

Saying that Muslim individuals and groups have failed to define their causes and beliefs is like saying that India simply gave those Royal jewels to the Queen as a gift...

(Everyone, please sign your comments.) It's a ridiculous argument to say that Western labels are inherently malicious or improper and that Islamic/Arabic labels are somehow more accurate and representative. Aside from it's blatant disregard for scholarship of all sorts, such a position naively assumes that the Arabic language is somehow immune to ideological "pollution". --Vector4F 05:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to point out that you assume just a tad too much regarding my profession. So I would urge you to keep this discussion civilized and not to resort to personal attacks to validate your view point.

I respect that you have an opinion on the issue.

Islam is a religion, rather than a "Movement." If you want to call Islam a Movement, then do you consider Judaism and Christianity "Movements" also?

I think that you are assuming that Muslims who follow these doctrines of "Islamism" do not define themselves. Now even if this is true, why is the word "Islam" attached to the Western definition of Islamism? We indeed could call them "Salafis" or "Wahabis" or terms which the Muslim world already uses to define these groups. These terms do exist in the Muslim world, but are not being used in the West.

It is because CERTAIN elements of the West seeks to marginalize Islam.

It is important to realize that Islam and all other ideologies want to marginalize their competitors.

Like I said earlier, ALL ideologies are battling each other for supremacy. I did not say that Islam is immune from that. But it seems that we are implicitly taking the Western perspective as the Truth.

This is why I am discussing these terms which ultimately do not portray ISLAM in a positive light. We can discuss these terms semiotically, as Saussurian fashion, if that is academic enough?

I just want to highlight if nothing else, that these terms which are relatively new are loaded and are not an innocent attempt to better understand and detail these Movements.

Best Regards,

70.55.238.80 19:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)AP

I would tend to agree with the comment on the use of the term Islamism (or oher terms) without qualifying the controversy over the labels and what they mean. There is absolutely no doubt that the groups to whom these terms are used to refer do not like the labels as they all consider themselves to be Muslims, practicing the correct interpretation of Islam. Now, while their opinion may not be all that relevant, if we're going to talk scholarship, most academic scholarship on Active Islam/Political Islam/Islamism or Ideology in the Middle East tends to acknowledge this problem. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the citation on this page, some people are not very clear on what is a legitimate, citable source. I would draw your attentions to the work by Professor Saad Eldin Ibrahim and the Ibn Khaldun Center. The International Crisis Group also has a good study on Islamism that is accessible off of their website. I would also suggest a search through the Arabist.net archives for articles on the Muslim Brotherhood and other 'Islamist' movements. I would especially point your attention to an article by Mona El Ghobashy. A scanned copy is available on the Arabist. Bassemkhalifa 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need to Higher Scholarly Standards

As Bassemkhalifa rightly points out, there are many Arab scholars who have addressed this issue. In the world of academia I would venture to say that Saad Eldin Ibrahim has a greater standing that Robert Spencer, whose hatred for Islam is covered by a thin veneer of psuedo-intellectualism. We have to acknowledge the fact that Muslim and Arab scholars have explored this issue.

70.55.238.80 18:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest an, although slightly dated (mid nineties), book called: Bitter Legacy by Professor Paul Salem, a Lebanese academic. The book does a very good job providing a basis for understanding ideology in the Arab world. He looks not only at the different ideologies, but also traces their origins and frames them in their social, political, religious contexts. I strongly suggest leafing through at least the relevant parts, if you can get your hands on the book. Bassemkhalifa 09:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For Further Reading Section

The books included in this section make it a travesty. They are ALL filled with anti-Islamic rhetoric and the list needs to be balanced out. Also, those books have nothing to do with "Islamism" in the sense of a political theory. Wallah96 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wallah, I have tried to add a few books with alternative and more balanced views. I hardly know any of the ones that were listed there before and I don't believe they are highly important ones either. --217.227.31.81 16:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs deleting

A part of islamic belief is in the sharia, how can there now be a seperate legal term that splits islam into religion and political? This is nonsense, Islam is not Christianity it is a religion with a political system, i think this is a pov. Thus Islam = shariah--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging with worldview and disputed about

The edit [43] by user HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) who's contributions [44] do seem to use the word "POV" a lot plus their desire to delete the article would indicate that the worldview and dispute about tags are spurious for this article. What do others think ? The article does seem "balanced". It'll never be clean cut as Sharia seems essential to Islam but as a body of law that is clearly at odds with European Human rights law so there will always be a difference in "worldviews" of muslims in Sharia based countries and say so called secular European countries. Ttiotsw 11:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Term is a Western Invention

The term is a Western invention which has no analogue in Islamic thought. It is consistent with an ideology that seeks to marginalize Islam. This is the impetus behind the creation of the terms "fundamentalist","radical Islam", and "Jihadist." These terms implicitly posit that there is an acceptable brand of Islam, as opposed to this "radical" brand which is unacceptable. It is no coincidence that the "Modern Muslim" espouses ideas in line with Western thought. Hence, they are bandied as model Muslims. Certain people may protest this viewpoint. However, we agree that the word fundamentalist has a negative connotation. Yet a fundamentalist is one who follows the....fundamentals, the key principles of their religion?! That strongly suggests that Islam's principles are negative and immoral. Now let us break down the word "Jihadist." As a Muslim I know that that the highest level of Jihad is the internal fight against one's own desire and to live a selfless life. As such every Muslim is urged to live a virtuous life. However, certain elements of the West seek to reduce the term Jihad to include blowing oneself up and collecting 70 virgins in heaven. This is not an oversight because information is readily available in this increasingly small world that we live in. No, information pertaining to Islam is being purposefully distorted and demonized. That is why so many individuals, especially Muslims are fighting to prevent purposeful misrepresentations of their religion being disseminated.

This article has been slapped with tags for a reason.

Best Regards,

70.55.238.80 18:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've reworded the introduction for clarity, and tweaked some of the links.

I've also noted that the term is a neologism, and mentioned that the distinction between islam and islamism is somewhat unclear. My understanding is that Islam says that all Muslims 'should' live in an Islamic state, but there is a great deal of disagreement as to how strong this obligation is, ranging from vaguely preferable to violently necessary.

I'm aware that the words "violently opposed" could mean "prepared to use violence" or "strongly opposed". This is consciously ambigous, because the term Islamism is sometimes used to mean both those groups, and sometimes only to mean those prepared to use violence. There's probably a better way to address that ambiguity.

The recurring theme of these movements, is to guide Muslims back to the origins of Islam, the original teachings and the models of the pious forefathers (al-salaf, AD 610-855)

I've moved and reworded this sentance, because what it says is true of all islamists, not just historical ones.

Islamism is a multi-faceted ideology, with a large variety of political divisions. The phenomenon includes moderate and relatively liberal groups as well as radicals, including Salafis, fundamentalists, neo-fundamentalists, and traditionalists. This variety of often competing streams of thought implies that a clear distinction between the one and the other under the term 'Islamism' alone is not given.

I've moved this paragraph here because it needs to be cleaned up and put somewhere, probably not back into the introduction.

There are still a couple of sections that would benefit from being merged into other sections, but I'll leave this here for now.

'Post 9/11 Issues' should probably be merged into 'recent history'

'Fear of Cultural Hegemony of the West' should probably be merged into 'Islamism and modern political theory' which should probably be expanded and moved before History.

And arguably, recent history should be extracted into its own section, and moved to the top, given that it is probably of more importance to the reader than the rest of the history section.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Attempt, But Still Problematic

There is so many problems with this article, but let me just touch upon some key issues. Islam is a complete way of life. As such there is NO distinction between religion and state. The idea that Islamist are the only ones that believe this is wrong. This idea is established in the religion. I am afraid that a total rewrite is needed in order to establish this term clearly as a Western construction. Once again, there is no analogous word in the Islamic lexicon to denote "Islamist." I am not foolishly arguing that the term was not exist. But due diligence must be carried out on the origin of the word.

In terms of the idea that Muslims should live in an Islamic State, the general consensus is that Muslims DO NOT wage war to make that a reality for those living in non-muslim lands. Also, Muslims are urged to abide by the laws of the country which they choose to reside. This is very clear.

I could go on at length to discuss the problematic nature of the term, but the paragraph that is mentioned alluding to the multi-faceted nature of the ideology indicates in itself that the term CANNOT be accurately defined because it is indeed an umbrella term. Hence, if accuracy is what we hope to achieve in Wikipedia we must consign ourselves to the idea that this article as it stands is erroneous, unfocused, and suffers from a stilted POV.

I apologize if I sounded too haughty, and I appreciate all of your work and do not want to belittle your endeavours. But if I can only impart one idea it is that the term does not exist in Islam. (Neither does Fundamentalism, Jihadist, et al) If we want to discuss these terms, we must firstly state that these are western terms, and chart the origins and implications of these terms.

Best Regards,

70.55.238.80 16:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:70.55.238.80; It does not matter what you think, do you think those who pay for wiki care what you think? Then think twice before wasting you time! Thanks for listening. Kiumars

Err.. Wiki is free, so no one is paying for it, Kiumars. Secondly, it is true "Islamism" is not used in Islam itself. It is obviously an English-language neologism which is already cited in the article; ipso facto, it is an observation and description of Islamic society by Westerners. The very term itself is POV, as it is a socio-political description of the political nature of Islam vs. the philosophical/theological aspects of it as a faith. However, it is a valid term to discuss and archive in Wikipedia, as are other neologisms key to understanding Western analysis and criticism of Islam. --Petercorless 22:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Petercorless nothing is free in this world; Wiki may be free to use but it is not run for free and some people are paying for it. Do you have any idea how much it costs to host and maintain a website like Wiki? Contact your ISP and get a quote, you will be surprised! Kiumars

There is an indirect cost, and there are voluntary contributors to Wikipedia. However, your arguments are spurious and specious. You are free to contribute to this article and discussion, but do not conflate the discussion to Wikipedia's finances. --Petercorless 07:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The cost is not the issue here. As an Arab Muslim, i can guarantee you that there is actually no word for Islamism. There is an Egyptian colloquial term for Islamist. However it is used with caution (people's interpretation of the word varies from "Conservative Muslim" to "Terrorist"). The closest term is Usooly (not sure about the transliteration) which is derived from the word for origin or fundament. I am not 100% sure, but i think it was in itself the Arabization of the Fundamentalist which, if i have my info straight, refers to a christian movement that started in the US. The label was at some point, probably by western media, tagged onto "Islamists". Again, a word to be used with ccaution.

Here's my suggestion. A segment of the article should be dedicated to explaining the controversial nature of the terms used (eg Islamism, Islamic Activism, Political Islam, Fundamentalist, Jihadi) which have all been, at some point or other used by someone as synonyms. Two good sources for this are Saad El Din Ibrahim who has been studying Islamists, especially in Egypt, for decades and the Int'l Crisis Group (ICG) Report on Islamism (or Active Islam, as i believe they call it). It shouldnt be too difficult to search for off of their site. 62.114.44.148 09:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Iranian Islamic Revolution & Khomeinism

Guys this section looks like an article from Jerusalem post! I can put many citations on it but there would be too many! You better come up with more convincing arguments and present fact and figures not rumors and fantasies. Can you? Ok, let’s try. Kiumars

Can you be more specific. What exactly is rumor and fantasy in that section? It looks like everything is sourced. --Leroy65X 17:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Muslim Brotherhood

I'd just like to suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood section be revisted. Here are the broad lines that i think need to be addressed:

1. A moore in depth look into the thought of Afghani, Mohamed Abdu and Hassan el Banna, the diffferences between them and how their thinking shaped discourse.

2. Then comes Qutb with his significantly more radical approach.

3. Then there can be discussion of the phases they have gone through (28-40s; 40s to mid 50s; their times in prison; their splintering in prison; the 70s when Sadat released them; the eighties to present or the Mubarak Era)

4 the MB has been probably the single most important, influential player in Sunni Islamic Activism in the world. There are branches in almost every Muslim nation in the world, some that have emerged as their own organizations (Hamas, no less). So a Solid understanding of their role is critical.

I made a "main" link to the Muslim Brotherhood article. Though it was inline in the paragraph text, perhaps by calling it out more people will follow the link to see the information you are looking for. --Petercorless 13:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology Needs to Be Expanded Upon

In my opinion it is not enough to say that the term is a neologism, and therefore this term is loaded with ideological bias. And consequently, the Western root of the term does not need to be discussed. This article is a little too top heavy in detailing what certain invested parties would like us to believe about Islam. My suggestion is to add a solid paragraph at the beginning to show the birth of the term and discuss its problematic nature. Therefore everything written below this coda can be contextualized as not representing Islam itself, but rather how the creators of the term Islamism view Islam. Perhaps this way a huge rewrite is not necessary, but the exploration of the term is framed.

Best Regards,

70.55.238.80 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Two points:

The article is already tagged

This article is about political Islamism. For the religion of Islam, see Islam

and has a couple more sentences explaining

This usage is controversial. People who are labeled Islamists oppose the term because it suggests their philosophy to be a political extrapolation from Islam rather than a straightforward expression of Islam as a way of life. Some Muslims find it troublesome that a word derived from “Islam” is applied to organizations they consider radical and extreme.

Is Al Jazeera loaded with ideological bias? Does it have an agenda of what it would like us to believe about Islam? It uses the term Islamism regularly.

IOW, the word is in use not just in Western but in non-Western publications. It is not going anywhere. It serves a need as a descriptor of a theory and a movement found all over the Islamic world and in much of the western world and that is very much in the news with protests, bombing, beheadings, etc. Eliminating it from wikipedia, or making this article less usable with a long disapproving introduction, will not make the word go away.

-- Affectionately, Leroy65X 23:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We Are Not Arguing Against the Existence of Islamism

We know that the term exists. And we also know that Al-Jazeera uses the term in their English broadcasts. But the Al-Jazeera usage ONLY proves the terms existence, which we are not contesting. What is being contested is the lack of etymology of the term. Just from a factual perspective the opening paragraph is shaky because Islam is viewed as a COMPLETE way of life. This idea is not a radical idea but one which is established in mainstream Islam.

True, but the rest of what is descriped is not quite so mainstream

.... a political system where Islamic law is preeminent in all fields of society, and that Muslims must return to the original teachings and the models of Islam. In practice, the word Islamist is used to denote Muslims violently opposed to the encroachment of "western" political, social, and cultural influence on the Muslim world.

Secondly, the so-called experts of Islam mentioned (Robert Spencer et al) are far from experts. rather, these individuals have a long and documented history of anti-Islamic bias.

Fred Halliday and John Esposito too? I don't know reputable Spencer and Bostom are but we can't exclude scholars because their work contradicts apologetics.

The question that I ask myself is why is there so much resistance to showing the Western origins of this term in this article? The way that the article is fashioned presently, it merely states the creators of "Islamism" viewpoint as FACT.

I certainly have no resistance. It's an english and french term. --Leroy65X 22:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That is the reason why the root of the term needs to be discussed. We know the term exists....Now tells how it came about...

Best Regards,

70.55.238.80 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Those that point out the problems of the term should not be labelled apologists. What are they trying to defend, I wonder? But you are right that John Esposito is a real academic, not because of his positions, but because of his scholarly background. Robert Spencer in constrast is no expert.

Best Regards to you,

70.55.238.80 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasons why to strike this statement: 1. The offered links ar not valid. 2. The fact for Al Jazeera or any other broadcast company using these terms does not prove their correctness.

The English website for Al Jazeera, for example, uses these terms frequently. [45][46].

I can't help but wonder if the main reason for striking the statement is it undermines the idea that "islamism" is the work of western propaganda that good muslms do not use! I will attempt to make these statemetns more precise.

I'm also going to add a history of usage section that may answer some of your concerns. --Leroy65X 20:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Algeria

I miss mentions of GIA, FIS and the elections in Algeria which the FLN lost. Also mention how the king of Morocco deals with local Islamism.

Added brief sections on algeria and lebanon and their important islamist movements --Leroy65X 20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ayubi quote?

This Ayubi bit about how Islamists merely wish to "escape upwards" seems needlessly argumentative and POV. There's plenty of specific programs proposed by, say, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamists I've talked to have definite political and economic programs they want to implement. They may be bad ideas, but they're still ideas. Relevance of Ayubi's quote? Graft | talk 20:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Ayubi, but stressing identity and dogma over practical solutions is a common criticism of Islamism. e.g. virtually no non-Islamist economist agrees that the banning of riba, interest paid on loans, will help any national economy in any way. It's not enough to have "ideas". --Leroy65X 18:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim

Not All The Muslims Is Beileve In Islamism As A political ideolegy.

The Islam religion Itself Is A Secularismic Religion

Liberalism Is The Solution

[edit] Opening Paragraph

This sentence, "and that western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influence on the Muslim world is against Islam." needs to be cited as coming directly from source which is interpreting the Koran, or deleted. It's an obvious interpretive leap.

No it does not. It can cite the works of Islamist leaders like Maududi, Qutb, and or Khomeini. This article is about Islamism, not the Quranic basis of Islamism. And kindly sign your posts on the talk page. --Leroy65X 17:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Militant Islam?

Should Militant Islam redirect here instead of where it goes now? J. D. Redding 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Pipes view on Islam

User:Kitrus has made the claim that Daniel Pipes

argues that political stances characterized as Islamist are actually central to Islam as a faith and questions the validity of the terms "Islamist" and "Islamism".

What is the source for this claim? Please keep in mind the strict sourcing requirements of WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have included Pipes (with a different claim), citing his website as a source.Bless sins 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I have removed it again. The article is about Islamism, not about Islamic militancy. -- Karl Meier 17:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pan-Islamism

Should we merge this article here. I don't think there is much of a difference.Bless sins 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pan-Islamism could be a section of the Islamism article. --Leroy65X 15:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamists=3/4 all Islamic teachings?

Oromo101 19:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Yes they are every muslim because becuase the definition islam isn't just a religion it is a way of life. the only part that won't include Islam in it is that they can take the inluence of any culture as long as it is good. Like some laws that would jepordize the muslim bliefs wouldn't be allowed. For example i was reading an article about a women walking naked amongst other pwople in New York and a police officer arrested her and the judge said you cant do anything to her. The kind of laws made by man that contradicts Islam or moral snce is just not allowed for Muslims. The political system of the western (modernized) world isn't right for 3/4 Islamists or Muslims in any part of the world since it would put man in the place of god in an Islams point of view since the Muslim Quran strictly states that you must follow the Sharia law. It doesn't matter if your in America, Russia, France, or even Mars you still have to follow these laws at your fullest extent as long as that person is willing to call himself a muslim. The word "Islamist" shouldn't even been part of the English language it should be replaced by the word Islam and it's true meaning. If you turn into a muslim that doesn't mean you have to changed every aspect of your life, change only your bad habits.

This is a perenial arguement. The answer is the same as before. Who were the Islamists fighting in Algeria, in Egypt, in Pakistan, in Morocco? Presbyterians? Buddhists?

They were fighting Muslims. To say Islamists are just Muslims fighting for Islam implies their (self-described Muslim) enemies are non-Muslims, which is not true.

We need another word besides Muslim and Islam to describe who Islamists are, and we need to describe how they differ from traditional Muslims, modernist Muslims, etc. If you don't believe me, ask al-Jazeera. They use the word. --Leroy65X 21:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foundadtion of the first Islamic Republic in Iran

The section is mainly written based on non-academic webpages with obvious anti-Muslim tone (not to mention unsourced statements). If you want to write a section like this, you may want to use more academic, neutral and scholarly sources. There are hundreds of such books and articles around. If you really want to use such webpages, you have to include some information from webpages governed by Islamic Republic too. Azartash 12:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Added citations for the section, mainly from al-jazeera or books published by university publishers. --Leroy65X 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relation between Islam and Islamism

"Some experts on Islam reject the notion that Islam is inherently political (e.g. Fred Halliday and John Esposito)."

These experts on aren't Muslims. So how can they say something about Islam unless it is there opinion. If these are truly experts I'm sure they would of converted already.

Do we only go to authorities who believe in/support the subject of the article? Can only Marxists be authorities on Marxism? Do we only Catholics for information on the Roman Catholic Church? Only Republicans on the Republican Party in the US? --Leroy65X 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on "Islam, Islamism and the west"

This section [[47]] is too long, too repetitious and too uninformative. We need the history, the causes, and background of Islamism, not looooong text on how the West and Islam are antagonistic to each other. --BoogaLouie 20:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Symbol/emblem of this ideology

If it is correct to asssume that Islamism is a political ideology in its own right (on par with fascism or communism), does it have a symbol of its own? Would it be a banner with the Shahada or perhaps the crescent and star? Or perhaps simply the color green? What symbols do established Islamist political parties use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.8.241 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

While many would call it a political ideology, there isn't really an "official" Islamist movement, or like some sort of HQ somewhere where all the "official" or "standardized" symbols are agreed upon. There are many different Islamist movements worldwide, some of which have no connection to each other at all. I'm sure we could find symbols for those individual movements, but as far as one for the whole article subject goes, I don't think there really is one. MezzoMezzo 19:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The crescent and star is Ottoman or turkish. Mezzo is right. there isn't central command and direction like the old comintern. --Leroy65X 21:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with Political aspects of Islam

Not in favor of merger. Islamism is one version of how Islam should express itself politically. Liberal Islam has another expression. I do agree that something should be done with Political aspects of Islam as it has no sources and is pretty unencyclopedic. --Leroy65X 20:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get rid of the Political aspects of Islam merger tag?

Here is a message I got from DBaba:

Regarding your revert at Islamism. I made that edit for a couple of reasons. For starters, to suggest that Islamism be merged with Islam is to suggest that Islamism comes within Islam, rather than without. This is quite a radical suggestion, and one that, to my mind, is unduly critical simply in the asking. Clearly, the people of Turkey do not practice an Islam that allows for Islamism; clearly, the radicalism of Iran is not the radicalism of Islam, just the radicalism of Iran. Know what I mean? It's a slur just to ask the question, because it suggests that Iranian oppression is Islamic oppression, when it's rather an interpretive response to Islam, something along those lines.

Also, the question has stood for months, and the only response I noted on the talk page suggested dropping it. I agree, fiercely!

I also deleted the description of the page as "about political Islam". I find that to be technically false. The page is about political systems that incorporate (or, depending on your view, appropriate) Islam. Even if the note was made more accurate ("This page is about political interpretations of Islam"), it would be unnecessary and unhelpful.

I propose that unless someone has a good objection we go along with the delete of the merger tag, (hurry up, we'll give you one week).

As for the deletion of the "This article is about political Islam For the religion of Islam, see Islam," message at the beginning of the article I disagree with DBaba. It's useful to have a quick description to distinguish the subject of the article from Islam itself or the study of Islam. "political islam" is nice, quick two word phrase. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How about, This page is about Islamic political systems. I feel like the current wording suggests that Islamist political systems are necessarily Islamic, when they only strive to be. They are only interpretations, so they are tending toward Islam, rather than Islam tending toward politics. Hope that's clear! Cheers, DBaba (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I buy that, except that if we want to avoid suggesting "that Islamist political systems are necessarily Islamic," we should say something like the "the Islamic political and religious movement known as Islamism," which is longer but still readable. Any objections? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I dig it. DBaba (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs additional citations for verification.

I'm giving this tag a week before I take it down. There may be some section that need citations but the article has over 130. Any objections? --BoogaLouie 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No section devoted to Islamist terrorism?

Much of Islamic terrorism is in fact Islamist terrorism. "Terrorism" should be one of the most important sections of this page. Was this page written by bin Laden apologists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.146.20 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well have to work on that --BoogaLouie 23:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mawdudi section trimmed

I trimmed the sectino and moved a quote to the main Abul Ala Maududi article. This article is gettnig pretty long. --BoogaLouie 23:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Commission Report's definition of Islamism

I have issue with the usage of the 9/11 commission report's definition of Islamism ("an Islamic militant, anti-democratic movement, bearing a holistic vision of Islam whose final aim is the restoration of the caliphate."). It appears to be written more as a criticism of Islamism than a definition. Firstly it is a description of a perceived current Islamist movement rather than the concept of Islamism and I think that is why it is able to use the adjectives 'militant' and 'anti-democratic'.

I would also question the neutrality of the source. As I mentioned previously, the immediate context is the statement that "Islamist terrorism is an immediate derivative of Islamism." User:BoogaLouie said that the neutrality of the source is not necessary for the article to be NPOV but if the source is clearly partial, shouldn't the source be mentioned in the article as well as the references section? The current wording of "Others define it as" doesn't suggest even criticism. Not forgetting also that this paragraph (the second one) is supposed to be dealing with the definition of the term, not the criticism of the ideology.

The current wording is better than describing them as broad and narrow definitions though, I have to admit.

Dormouse80 (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view?

I was truly disconcerted to see this article on wikipedia. I have always been a strong advocate of wikipedia, but I'm not sure the purpose of this page at all. Islamism appears to me to be a devised term used as a rhetorical concept, like "democracy in the middle east" or "Islamo-Fascism"; or, for that matter any number of contrived terms often used as polemical devices. The point is, after the invention of such a meaningless, all-encompassing phrase, its users are invariably asked to define it. Since they have difficulty giving a definition to so broad a phrase, they produce a vague list of 'characteristics'--traits that usually indicate a label of "islamist" is in order. The problem is, the list of characteristics is so extensive it would force most moderate muslims to evaluate deep religious questions in order to render a "yes or no" answer to your question of whether they believe in a certain article of faith deemed "islamist".

The main problem is the subsequent association of Islamism with anti-American terrorism. In fact, the article is set up not as an objective presentation, one that would be accepted by both critics and supporters of an ideology as being neutral, fair or even handed. Rather, it reads as a polemical speech, dropping hints of negative association, then masterfully building to an all-out association at the end of the second paragraph. The article reads as an indoctrination, setting up first a seemingly neutral association of Islamism with the belief in Islam as a political system. The article uses certain code words--words like un-Islamic, sharia and others--that sound to uninitiated western ears of repression. Following is an association with rules about dress, playing music, and other mundane activities, which give the reader the direct impression that islamists--defined in the first line as muslims who believe Islam is a political system--advocate the death penalty for watching television. This may be a fair characterization of what people mean when they say "Islamist", but that proves the word's purpose as a polemical device, not one that any individual would self-apply. It is an appellation, and often the figures listed have little common ideological ground, beyond that feebly used by polemicists to group them together as Islamist. However, the article appears to present these people as espousers of whichever doctrine the article is about--in this case, espousers of Islamism. We now have an ideology, a list of beliefs, and a number of people (whose biographies reveal them not to be very nice) who all share it. However, this is a fallacious circle and a distortion, and a dangerous one at that.

When a word is made up to lump all of one's enemies into a single category, and that word is then defined to include people who share a broadly held political viewpoint, what can we call it but propaganda? Legitimizing words like "islamism" by asserting they describe realistic bonds between actually disparate views enables a political discussion with real ramifications to proceed on idelogically shaky and logically fallacious ground. This serves as a disservice to all parties, none of whom benefit from the oversimplification of complex issues. This of course is to condemn even the existenceof a neutralpage on Islamism; in fact we find that the article creatively gives life to the term, provides a contrived list of candidates, and rouses the reader to an irrational hatred of the ideology. This is a kind of "straw man" article, like the straw man argumentative fallacy. A straw man ideology is created, one that is easy to discredit because wecreate the criteria. We give it both broad based characteristics, and negative associations. We then point out all the bad things about it (things that are only in the same category because we put them there, under a name we created), and discredit all those with whom we now choose to associate the term.

This means that now, whoever we associate with Islamism (and we've given ourselves a big enough net to catch any practicing Muslim and tag her or him), our readers will associate with all the bad things, and voila! they're discredited before they speak. I realize I have more than belabored the point, but I feel it important to show exactly why I feel this article should not exist, or should not be permitted to present itself as a neutral article on a realistic phenomenon on a website committed to objective investigation. 99.226.0.106 (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding Eric comment added by 99.226.0.106 (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

please explain what specifically in the article shows bias, is polemical, or is any more "meaningless, all-encompassing phrase" than say the term "socialism" or "fascism". --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

When an article is written on a broad umbrella term that emcompasses many variations, the best way to accurately describe it, and to distill the essence of the term, is to focus on those characteristics which typify it, those which are shared by the greatest number of proponents who would be considered orthodox by most other proponents. This, of course would be tricky for Islamism, as it is not a self-applied term, and therefore determining who is and isn't is a muddy business. Nonetheless, if possible, we would want to describe the CORE CHARACTERISTICS, those broadly shared by proponents. Instead, this article characterizes extremes, linking broadly held Islamic beliefs with extreme violence and repression. A contrast of this article with the one on Zionism , which portrays another controversial term, albeit in language that would likely be considered fair by self-proclaimed Zionists, will demonstrate in what way this article is biased.

As for its vagueness: read the first paragraph of each article on islamism, socialism, and fascism. In the case of the latter two, we are given definitions which, while far from absolute, nonetheless demarcate these ideologies from others. It is this demarcation that is crucial here. While not all socialists or fascists believe the same thing, if someone agrees with a self-description consonant with these definitions, the chance is that they are a socialist or a fascist, and not something else. This kind of reverse test is failed by Islamism: the fact that someone views Islam as a political ideology does not confirm that they are in fact an Islamist, as these views are likely to be affirmed by most Middle Easterners, rendering the descriptive value of the term Islamism essentially zero.

Essentially, the term provides us with the convenience of not allowing anyone to espouse political Islam or pan-Arabism without being labelled by a term which irrefutably carries a negative stigma and an association with violence and repression. It is a red herring and an ad hominem, one which stifles both open debate and legitimate political discourse in the middle east. There are realistic phenomena exerting very real political forces in the middle east: the kind of pan-national unionism one might expect from a region of relative ethic, linguistic, religious and ideological homogeneity; as well as the sort of violent resistance one might anticipate from the brutalized citizens of totalitarian governments. Simplifying the debate by creating an abstraction to catch all resistive ideologies under a single term, then reifying that term and proposing it as a causal factor of the disparate phenomena it clumsily seeks to explain is a form of begging the question that renders the term, as stated earlier, of no descriptive value.

-Eric 99.226.0.106 (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed the term is different than socialism or fascism or capitalism because the peolpe it applies to reject its use.

"this article characterizes extremes, linking broadly held Islamic beliefs with extreme violence and repression" This is untrue. The article includes the Turkish Justice and Development Party which is so moderate its probably post-Islamist rather than Islamist. It has only a short section on Islamic terrorism. It also gives multiple definitions of the term Islamism in the lead.

Please explain what part of the article "stifles both open debate and legitimate political discourse in the middle east." I find this claim hard to take. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Creating a term which would not be self-applied by anyone it is used to describe, draining it of descriptive value by grouping moderate elements with extremist elements, drawing links between them that exist only on the most tenuous of grounds, may not in and of itself stifle debate, but to begin with it certainly is of little use. What does stifle debate is whenever the term is used. Immediately the question "what does islamism even mean" will sidetrack the issue; since it is clear that this article itself fails to provide an adequate answer to this question, asking it is quite legitimate. In the unlikely case that a mutually satisfactory definition could be arrived at, we still have the problem that no one would self-describe themselves as Islamist. So now, instead of comparing viewpoints, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each position, and synthesizing workable solutions, you have groups defending themselves against an epithet, perhaps even obscuring the ideological foundations of their arguments to avoid being labelled an Islamist. My question is, if we have a term that no one would self-apply, that is so broad it has little descriptive value, carries an emotional weight and a negative connotation, and whose definition cannot be agreed upon by the community, what is the purpose of presenting this article as an analysis of a realistic phenomenon? The fact is that the term Islamism is applied post-hoc to already existing phenomena, then proposed as a causal factor in those phenomena. Proceeding on the grounds of this circular logic is what stifles debate.

It's not that this article shouldn't exist. It should simply read very differently. Instead of attempting to describe for readers what Islamism means, the article should be about the term itself--who uses it, for what reason, what various parties think it describes, and what is going on in the Islamic world that results in the term's existence. Given the heated contention with which this article is discussed in this very section, I do not see how this article can claim to represent a "neutral point of view", and therefore, at the very least, should carry a warning indicating that this article is qualitatively different from other articles defining ideologies. This is not a page on an ideology; it is a page on a term used to characterize various ideologies.

-Eric

99.226.0.106 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should an article on Islamism not be about Islamism? An article on socialism or fascism or capitalism, is about socialism or fascism or capitalism, and not about "who uses it, for what reason, what various parties think it describes." There are moderate and extreme elements of all those groups/movements. That's no reason not to have articles on them.

As we have agreed it is true Islamist disavow the term, but their self-describing term is usually "Muslim" or "monotheists", which is not used by many others and not very useful.

The word is not the exclusive property of neocons or rightwing nuts. Al Jazeera uses it. Search: "islamist site:english.aljazeera.net" in google and you get 1200 hits.

The basic issue is that Islamism refers to something, and as long as it does there are always going to be people wanting to know what that something is. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Clarify

It may sound like a stupid question, but Islamist = A Fundamentalist Islam Religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomMcLean (talk • contribs) 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No it's a realy complicated question. Some (Graham E. Fuller) say fundamentalism is an extremist subset of Islamism. Some say the two are different tendencies of the current Islamic revival. The movements change over time. Leaders change their views. (One of the issues that got Khomeini involved in politics was the Shah's attempt to give women the vote which Khomeini thought was part of the war on Islam. Later, he dropped the issue completely and women played an important part in the Iranian Revolution.)

Here's is one guy's distinction:

"Three points clearly separate the Islamists from the fundamentalism of the ulamas:

• Political Revolution, "Islamists consider that the society will be Islamized only through social and political action: it is necessary to leave the mosque ..."
• shariah - "Islamist movement insists less on the application of the shariah than do the fundamentalist ulamas. Whereas moderates and neo-fundamentalists see the application of the shariah as a key to the Islamization of society, the radical Islamists, without questioning the principle of the sharia, tend to consider it more a project than a corpus." (Roy, p.38)
• issue of women. "Islamist generally tend to favor the education of women and their participation in social and political life: the Islamist woman militates, studies, and has the right to work, but in a chador. Islamist groups include women's associations." (p.38) "The Islamists' obsession is not that women should return of the home, but that the sexes be separated in public." (The Failure of Political Islam by Olivier Roy, translated by Carol Volk, (Harvard University Press, 1994) p.59

[edit] Democracy in Islam

I'm not an Islamist, but a Muslim nevertheless. From what I understand, if Islamism is defined as an extreme form of Islam, I can fairly say that Islam in general, believes in democracy. There are various quotes from the Quran that emphasizes the importance of knowing other people's opinions, and hence democracy. The Islamism article underlines that Islamism is against democracy. Can someone, who is more knowledgeable than myself, edit the article to reflect that Islamism is not against democracy, and this "Islamism is against democracy" is only a publicity stunt? Ramymamlouk (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) no the article doesn't define Islamism as against democracy. No, Islamism is not an extreme form of Islam its a modern political movement in Islam. The article gives about three different definitions of Islamism. Your interpretation of the Quran and democracy is your POV. The article is not about Ramyamalouk's interpretation of the Quran, its about the movement of Islamism. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 3 Edits by Anon

Edits by 193.115.70.9 are messed up in a number of ways.

Islamism (Arabic: al-'islāmiyya) is a term that denotes various political ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also has something to say regarding political systems, is like saying socialism has something to say about how the government should influence the economy. What Muslim doesn't believe Islam has something to say regarding political systems?

There is undue weight given to Graham Fuller. A quote of his was included in the previous version of the lead deleted by the anon, but now there is a big blockquote by him. (Unless I am very much mistaken blockquotes in the lead are a wikipedia no-no.) Fuller is just one many experts on Islamism.

Consequently I am going to revert the lead with a few changes.

Please bear in mind this article has been worked on for years and the lead has become quite finely tuned to reflect the cross section of points of view in Islamism. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 4 Edits by Anon

69.149.83.224 has made edits to the Mawdudi section contradicting what was already there - whether Mawdudi was in favor of a Muslim Pakistan state - and adding a long blockquote. The problem is there are no sources given (and he messsed up the blockquote code). So I'm reverting it. -BoogaLouie (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)