Jump to content

Talk:Islamism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Saddam

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

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

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

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

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

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

REvert

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

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

"similar to Zionism"

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

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

Islamism different from Islam

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

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

Kepel/Saddam

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

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

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

Nuttall and Islamism

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

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

Islamism and history

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

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

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

Graft 19:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Islamism and Fascism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your reasons can be summarized as:

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

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

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

Islamism vs Muslim?

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

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

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

obvious bullshit

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

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

Islamists don't regard themselves as Islamists???

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

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

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

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

This article is seriously in danger of violating WP:NOR

We as editors are not treading on solid ground working on this article. As the following 6 top online dictionaries would seem to indicate, the term "islamism" hasn't even properly entered into the lexicon of the English language.

1. Cambridge dictionary for "islamism"

2. Merriam Webster's for "islamism"

3. MSN Encarta for "islamism"

4. Newbury House of American English for "islamism"

5. Infoplease for "islamism"

6. Factmonster for "islamism"

Due to this fact there is a strong need to properly surveil what goes into this article for if we do not then this article has the potential to violate Wikipedia:No Original Research and actually become cited for defining what islamism is. This is extremely counter to ethic of WikiPedia. (thanks to Netscott for setting an example of this in Talk:Islamophobia) I will be nominating this page for deletion soon. 24.7.141.159 23:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And it will fail to be deleted for the exact same reasons that Islamophobia is failing. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is rather balanced and, in comparison to some (especially Islamophobia), very well written. Kyaa the Catlord 12:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
First, I want to be clear. This article has nothing to do with Islamophobia. This article is not about Islam proper, but instead about a class of modern interpretations of Islam. Nowhere should this article classify all Muslims, because not all Muslims agree on how their religion should be applied. Many Muslims, for example, live in secular nation-states and have no problem with the political order. In contrast, an Islamist opposes a secular government and believes the state should, in some way, reflect a particular interpretation of Islam. Again, I must emphasize the particularity of Islamist interpretations. They are in no way attempts at unifying all Muslims. Therefore, Islamist positions are both 1)particular religious views and 2)anti-secular political views.
Second, there are other names for Islamism - "political Islam", "radical Islam", "Islamic fundamentalism". There are even terms like "Muslimism" and "Mohammedanism" floating around, though rarely used. I doubt many of these will be found in any dictionary, as Western scholarship got interested in this mostly in the 80's and 90's. A lot of terms in the humanities are not solidified. We could change the article name to one of the above - I probably wouldn't be opposed. However, the term "Islamist" is widely known among people who are well-read in these subjects. Precisely what it means may be contested - but then again, so is precisely what it means to be Muslim (again, not all Muslims believe the same things). If we need a list of a dozen or so scholarly sources which use the term, then I can provide these (with a little time).
Third, if anyone wants to put this article up for deletion, I encourage them to do it sooner rather than later. Since contentions about this seem to be pretty fundamental, I don't see a point in waiting. --Vector4F 03:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Mohammedanism is old. I believe that it has fallen out of use due to it being tarnished as a perjorative term by racist and antisemitic movements of the early 20th century. Kyaa the Catlord 13:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
further, mohammadeanism isn't the same thing as islamism. islamism is a concept within islam. mohammadeanism is just an antiquated word for islam. its like moselm. most people no longer use it because its now offensive. --User:Yung Wei 綪永徽 00:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the term "Islamism"

Should there be a history of the use of the word Islamism/Islamist? Andjam 14:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the term "Islamist" is in itself discriminatory, incites hate, and muddies the distinction between non-fundamentalists and others. No other religious fundamentalist is named after their religion, how about a Christianist? How are we to avert conflict with Muslims if we don't use proper vocabulary? I think a much more accurate and less confusing term would be Shariaist/Shariaism, after the word Sharia. (Sharism/Sharist is already taken from "to share")

People argue that the word Islamist has history. So what? So does "nigger", should we resurrect that word?

Lou Dobbs from CNN initially said he would use the term while I was still in college. I don't remember the exact date but it was between 2002-2003 when Lou Dobbs started his college tour. 24.7.141.159 15:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to create new words. (BTW, there is an article on the word nigger) Thanks, Andjam 22:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Around the blogsphere (LittleGreenFootBall for example) the term "Islamist" has been tossed around as a derogatory term used exclusively by the the anti-muslim crowd against anyone who is perceived to be pro-Islam (whether they are fundamentalists or not). I believe the definition should stand, but there should also be a mention that this word will offend some people.68.160.131.210 22:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's used in scholarly literature (quick search on JSTOR has over 1000 hits for "Islamism"). Any specialist who handles Islam-related issues would know what you mean, at least in general. A lot of people use terms like "political Islam" or apply adjectives like "radical" for qualification. The fact that the term is vaguely defined, in conversational terms, is largely because most people in the West do not know much about the subject. The term is not exclusively used in the West either. If you read an Egyptian daily, for example, you will see it used (in the English translation at least).
The close relation of the word to Islam is a problem, though that's partly the nature of language. I think the intro is sufficient (apart from the little edit spat going on at the moment) - "controversial" is the key. --Vector4F 02:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

'See also' and 'External links' section length

It seems the "See Also" section is far too long. For one thing, listing all Islamist groups in this article seems unproductive. It would be better to have a new article "list of Islamist Groups" or something like that. Also, listing things like "Steven Emerson" and "Daniel Pipes" is really pushing the POV/NPOV line. There are plenty of people who specialize in Islamism - far too many to list in this article. Perhaps we can agree on a shorter list - say <10 items? Because of the controversy on this article, I would prefer to have some consensus on this before removing things. Comments please. --Vector4F 00:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

pushing the POV/NPOV line is an understatement. The whole list in 'External Links' is absolutely POV. Three articles of Daniel Pipes, the pope of anti-islamism, is two too many. More so when considering that there is a wikipage dedicated to Pipes, to which this article links. The other links are also contra-islamism. So, the list should be reduced (but not completely deleted of course). In order to balance all POVs and have NPOV, shouldn't there be at least one site which is sympathetic to islamism and one other which is critically inbetween pro and contra? -- ActiveSelective 20:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
User Yuber made some changes to the 'See also' section. I actually think there should be a listing of islamist groups, especially in an article about islamism! Where else? I would like to see these changes reverted.
The 'External links' section, however, should be worked on. (see my contrib above) -- ActiveSelective 11:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I cut down on the external links: 1 broken, 3 copies of other links, 1 promoting racist fear.
and I added a (imho very good) article on Islamism (The Prophet and the Proletariat): academic, both history and today, not pro, not contra, but critical of islamism
In total it is a bit less POV now, but still overwelmingly POV nevertheless: 5 contra-islamism (help fighting 'em), 3 suspicious of islamism (keep watching 'em), 1 critical (what are pro's and contra's?)
-- ActiveSelective 10:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Rampant Linking

The adding of rampant and off-topic links to articles is an editing method generally frowned upon in Wikipedia. I feel that this is harming and not helping the article. If you can say why you think these links [1] should remain and make it good, please do so. As it stands, it looks to me as an unacceptable attempt at diluting the article or moral relativism; additionally, we have no similar links to Islamist Terrorism at Christian Terrorism and the standard at Wikipedia is to keep your links ON topic.

I also think that the doubling-up of the Islamist Movements and See Also section needs some cleanup. There are redundancies there.Queeran

I think the links to the somewhat similar ideologies that have developed with other religions are important and useful. There is more than one facet to Islamism, it is both an Islamic idea and a political science idea. This can clearly be seen by looking at the categories the article is in: it is part of the Islam category tree, but also part of the political theory tree. Thus we link to somewhat related ideas within Islam, such as Jihad, Dhimmi, and Wahhabism. We should also link to somewhat related ideas in political science, such as Dominionism.
I do agree that the double listing of Islamist organizations is a problem, and I have thus removed them from the see also. I also removed the prominent Islamist thinkers from this list, as they are already given considerable mention within the text of the article. - SimonP 04:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
You will need to explain why Dominionism is supposedly similar, I do not see the connection.Queeran
Both Islamism and Dominionism are ideologies that advocate basing government structures on religious ideals. - SimonP 15:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
However, [And_You_Are_Lynching_Negroes] is not a proper form of debate, and the links are off-topic. The relationship to these is adequately handled by the link to Theocracy. Queeran

As no one bothered to answer that, but users keep trying to reinsert those links, I have once again deleted them. Queeran

I agree with you, Dominionism should not be linked from this article. It's too specific, Islamism is wholly another thing (in context), and relating these two is the job of an article like Theocracy. --Vector4F 19:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

POV

Islamism has been coined by replacing the term Islamic fascism by many neo-conservative and anti-Muslim writers. The same way, they have also coined the term Islamist from Islamic fascist. Now these terms have been used by many writers to refer to any Islamic organization or any Muslim person. Most of the people with Muslim background have been refered to as Islamist they could be Muslim fundamentalist but they are not Islamic fascist. I would request that Wilikipedia review use of these two term and replace them with Islamic, Muslim, Islamic fundamentalism or Mulim fundamentalist as appropriate. The defination of fascism and fascist should also be reviewed in this context. I would be raising NPOV for every entry of Islamist and Islamism. User:Siddiqui 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these issue(s) should be reviewed. I would support coordination to that effect - for example a cross-article consensus on the use of these terms - and I would be glad to participate. Clear terminology is in everyone's interests. On the issue of this specific article, do you have any examples of usage that you disagree with? I welcome another perspective. --Vector4F 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Was this not already covered somewhere else? In either event, I believe we should avoid weasel words. Queeran
As I've argued here in the past, the term "Islamism" and "Islamist" was not coined by neo-conservatives and has a long history in scholarly literature that is at least neutral with respect to Muslims (if not sympathetic), and means more or less what this article describes. I think what you meant to say was Islamists and Islamism have been relabeled by neo-cons as "Islamic fascism" or "Islamofascists". However, there really ought to be some term to describe people of this political persuasion that is NOT perjorative, and "Islamist" is it. The article on Islamofascism deals, I think, with perjorative connotations of that term. Is that not satisfactory? If not, why not? Graft 02:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with what Graft states. This has become the standard term for this subject, and is not usually considered pejorative. - SimonP 03:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
We do not agree. This matter has to be discussed furthur. The Islamist and Islamism is totally unacceptable. Each and every Muslim political organization and many Muslim leaders has been termed as "Islamist" which is untrue. Some organizations are fundamentalist but not involved in any militanncy yet they are termed as "Islamist". I will have to raise pov for each and every instance of use of these words in Wikipedia.

User:Siddiqui 18:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The term does not indicate militancy, and that is not the way it is used in this article. Furthermore, it is absolutely untrue that "Each and every Muslim political organization ... has been termed as 'Islamist'". Even were this the case, what of it? I can find many examples of people ignorantly throwing labels around. I don't see how this reflects on the proper meaning of "Islamist". Graft 22:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Graft, SimonP, etc. It seems that the only definition of Islamism advanced in this article is that of a political position that advocates, to some degree, the application of Shar'ia. --Vector4F 00:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem that none of you seem to understand is that, to Muslims, Islam is a complete way of life. Shar'ia is applied in many Muslim nations, including current United States allies such as Pakistan. The idea of splitting spiritual Islam from the actual way of life of Islam is a Western convention and shows a gross lack of understanding of the religion by the authors of this article. To that extent, if we are going to continue to use this term to define what amounts to a set of people who a militant perspective then we must clear state that Islam and Shar'ia cannot be split. Neglect of this fact shows that most, if not all, the authors of this article has biased. I'm also going to vote for NPOV and Unverified facts tags. 24.7.141.159 15:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I will have to object to Siddiqui's claims. First of all, the term Islamist does not come from "Islamic Fascist" any more than the term "Communist" comes from "Communal Fascist" or any other idea. Even the term Fascist itself is derivative, meaning one who advocates a sort of governing system known as Fascism.

The term Islamist is used to describe someone who advocates Islam, the rule of Islam, or in particular the backwards Shari'a legal system that Islamic jurisprudence claims is "holy" law, in a particular nation or all over the world. Because of this, I have to agree with SimonP, Graft, and Vector4F on the matter.

As for "each and every Muslim political organization" being termed "Islamist", sadly, the term extends to many of them. Not all, and I do not believe all, but the vast majority because any organization which sends money to so-called mujahid anywhere in the world, any organization which advocates the entrance into secular law of islam-based crimes or punishments, can thereby be termed Islamist under this definition. In fact, there are probably some people who would say that you - because you are raising the objection of "POV" but are more concerned that the word is some form of an insult to Islam - might be termed an Islamist thereby yourself. Queeran

Issue raised by MediaMonitors.net

"For example, one needs to have a look at the lead definition of Islamism, Islamic Fundamentalism, Islamic world and Dhimmi. Wikipedia doesn’t say who coined the term “Islamism” and when. It rather says it is “a set of political ideologies” which “hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that should govern the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state.” Before making it the lead definition, did the editors give it a thought to verify and see why did the Qur’an called Islam a Deen for Muslims? If Islam is not a Deen—a way of life—what is it actually? And if it is a way of life, why should it not cover “legal, social and economic imperatives.” Interestingly, there is no entry for Deen in Wikipedia. There is only a reference to a Bosnian dancer by the name of Deen. The absence of Deen in Wikipedia is not for the reason that there is no space for Arabic entries or it is less important than other Arabic terms such as Riba. A proper definition of the word Deen with reference to the Qur’an will nullify the falsehood under Islamism." [2]

Can we create an article called Deen, and can we get the origin of the word Islamism into the article (from memory, I think it was Voltaire who first coined it)? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't give a lot of credit to the criticism (Wikipedia isn't a standards board), but this seems like a good reason for an article. It is very important to clarify terms. Unfortunately, I have no sources on where the term "Islamism" originates. --Vector4F 06:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Systematic bias of nomenclature exposed

A supermajority of determined participants at Wikipedia has the strength to impose their will regardless a neutral, scholarly perspective, but the fact that Islamism is the topic of an article hostile to political aspirations in much of the Islamic world, while Christianism redirects to a main article about the faith reveals the deep systematic bias of those who dominate this project. 12:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I never understand why people speak of systematic biases in such vague terms. It makes it sound like a conspiracy. Just be clear. What would you like to see changed and why? --Vector4F 06:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Either that or a plea to victimization. Regardless, one "ism" of a religion is not parallel to another "ism". We can't argue essential meanings here, just usage. --Vector4F 20:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

With respect to this topic, I've added NPOV tags. A reading of this talk page clearly shows that Vector4F has an axe to grind against proponents of Islam. I highly suggest looking at this link for how to balance this article out: Islamofascism#Criticism_of_the_use_of_the_term The same criticisms of that term apply to this Wikipedia article. Until that section is copied over or something similar added to counteract the bias here, I am going to vote to keep the NPOV tags on this article. The link section also needs a clean up because most, if not all, the external sites listed are largely Islamophobic orgs. 24.7.141.159 16:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, that's either sarcasm or bad faith. Are you the poster who started this talk thread? Regardless, I still would like to know what anyone wants changed, i.e. specifics. For example, if the links are bad, pick a few you want to remove, justify why (without resorting to labeling to get your opinions across), and make the edit.
Also, if anyone has a problem with the term "Islamism", it would be great if they could provide some information on where it comes from and how it may be biased. Criticism works best with contributions. --Vector4F 21:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Vector4F, it not sarcasm nor bad faith. I just have a desire to balance this article out a little bit more with the appropriate criticisms of the use of this term. The fact is that it seems like you're the guy in charge and I don't want to go about editing anything unless we talk about it first. I hope that sounds fair. The problem with the term "Islamism" is that it was coined in much the same way Islamofacism came about--mainly through western proponants post-9/11. I think the first hurdle is to decide whether we want "Islamism" to be defined in its classical sense as synonymous term for Muslim (a follower of Islam) or if we want to use the recent rise of of the negative connotaction of it. Let me know what you think. 24.7.141.159 04:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. First of all, the term is NOT a post-9/11 term. It was in use in scholarly literature well before then. Second, it would be absurd to define it in its "classical" sense as synonymous for Muslim, because that's absolutely not the point. This is a term to distinguish between those who see Islam as a political, economic, etc. system, and those who do not (e.g. secular Muslims). Benazir Bhutto is not an Islamist, though she is a Muslim. Graft 20:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Islam actually is a political, economic, etc. system by the mere fact that much of these systems and the rules governing them are present in the Qur'an. Ignoring this fact shows that you have never bothered picking up a translation for the Qur'an and are just ignorantly spewing non-sense on these pages. The idea of a "secular" Muslim is actually a very recent phenomenon and it's application is more of a side effect of the Western preception of religion rather than something touted in Islam itself. It's rather ironic that you cite Benazir Bhutto in your response because even she advocated government systems and laws rest on the Shari'a therefore making her an "Islamist" in your constipated definition. The NPOV tags are going back on. 24.7.141.159 15:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Following up my own comment with a speech Benazir Bhutto gave to the John F. Kennedy School of Government in 1997. link Here are two relavent paragraphs that completely dismantle Grafts non-sense.
"There are four democratic principles at the heart of Islam. The first is consultation, or Shura ; then, consensus, or Ijma ; and finally independent judgment, or Ijdaha . Instead of Islam being incompatible with democracy, our holy book makes it clear that the principle operations of the democratic process: consultation between the elected officials and the people; accountability of leaders to the people they serve, are fundamental to Islam. The holy book says that Islamic society is contingent on mutual advice, through mutual discussions, on an equal footing. Let me repeat that now: Equal footing. Ladies and gentleman, the Holy Koran is as committed to equality as it is to democracy. As committed to pluralism and tolerance as it is to order and doctrine. I know this is inconsistent with Western stereotypes. But, nevertheless, it is true. Consultation under the Holy Koran demands that public decisions are made by representative personalities. By men and by women who enjoy the confidence of the people and the integrity of their own character. Consensus provides a basis for majority rule. And, according to the Muslim scholar Luis Saffie , the legitimacy of the state depends upon the extent to which state organization and power reflect the will of the Omar , or the people."
Notice how Mrs. Bhutto continually refers to the Qur'an for consultation in political and social matters. Interesting isn't it?
"Western political scientists, these days, hypothesize populist strategies to create more effective forms of participatory democracy. But, Muslims do not believe they have to go back to the drawing board to conceptualize democratic order. It is right there in the holy book. Under Islam, we do not have to create a sense of community and individual responsibility. It is there in the holy book, itself. Enlightened Muslims find Western lectures on democracy condescending. Muslims need the West to acknowledge that dictatorship came out because of the strategic need to contain communism. Dictatorship did not come about because it was a part of Muslim faith or culture."
Again she referes to Muslims referring to the Qur'an as necessary. For Bhutton being a non-Islamist, she sure seems to talk a lot about a political system based on teachings in the Qur'an.
On women: "To those in the West who would condemn Islam for being anti-women, let me as the first Muslim woman elected Prime Minister of her country recall that three Muslim countries: Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey have all had democratically elected women as head of their government. In other words, my friends, there is much that we can learn from each other. Islam and the West; the West and Islam, as we cross into a new century and into a new millennium."
And lastly, what I think Graft is completely missing is this: "So, let us decide to cast aside myths and stereotypes about each other. For Islam and for the West, it is time to attack the common and real enemies of our respective societies. These enemies are not people; they are ignorance and hatred. These enemies are not ethnic minorities; they are starvation and intolerance. Myopia and prejudice, whether it be religious, political, ethnic, gender or intellectual, are the common enemies of our hope for the twenty-first century. They are the fuel of the clash of civilization."
Pretty good for a speech writting in 1997 but Pakistan's first female head of state. The NPOV tags will stick around until we address concerns in this article. Graft, knowledge is an amazing thing and it would be in your best interest to go learn something before preaching ignorance here. 24.7.141.159 15:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh. Okay, so she makes references to the Qu'ran to justify her political stances, and so you call her an Islamist? Saddam Hussein quoted from the Qu'ran all the time. Are you going to say he's an Islamist now, too? Try again. Many reformist movements have made similar efforts to interpret the Qu'ran in ways sympathetic to their liberal politics. That doesn't make them Islamists - that makes them politically astute. Someone who says that modern parliamentary democracy - not a traditional Islamic legal system - is compatible with Islam is decided NOT an Islamist by my 'constipated' definition. Compare that with Hassan al-Banna, etc., whose primary goal was a restoration of the Caliphate. If you're putting both these people in the same boat, I would say you need to hone your powers of discrimination. Graft 23:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if you have access to it, I suggest you search through JSTOR or something similar to satisfy yourself about the use of the term 'Islamist' in scholarly literature, WELL before 9/11. Graft 23:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Did you read anything I wrote or did you just skim it? Did you both reading the entire speech or have knowledge of the entire works of Bhutto? It sure doesn't seem like it from your response. You said above:
This is a term to distinguish between those who see Islam as a political, economic, etc. system, and those who do not (e.g. secular Muslims). Benazir Bhutto is not an Islamist, though she is a Muslim.
I hate to burst your bubble but I pretty much proved that Mrs. Bhutto has always believed in Islam being the ultimate governing priciple in Pakistan. Hence, your little blurb is a contradiction. On one hand you refer to the idea of a "secular" Muslim which has never been defined the confines of Islamic scripture. Rather this is an ethnocentric interpretation of religion at the hands of someone (read: you) that has dealt with the separation of secular and spiritual division. Islam is *NOT* like that. Then, when I clearly show you Mrs. Bhutto referring to consultation of the Qur'an for determining a system of government, you back track by saying Mrs. Bhutto is politically astute by interpret[ing] the Qu'ran in ways sympathetic to [her] liberal politics. Right. If you ever meet Mrs. Bhutto, you should directly ask her if she is interpreting the Qur'an or if she's following 1400 years worth of Islamic political history. Her answer will be the latter which, again, disagrees with your view point. Your definition of Islamist is, from the outset, flawed because you don't know what an Islamic political system is supposed to be and when someone like Bhutto cites the Qur'an you quickly change your definition.
The best part of your response was this: Someone who says that modern parliamentary democracy - not a traditional Islamic legal system - is compatible with Islam is decided NOT an Islamist... Your lack of knowledge on both Islamic history and Islam itself comes through quite clear. I must ask you to tell all of us in Wikipedia-land to cite passages from primary Islamic sources (i.e. Qur'an and verified Hadith/Sunnah) to support such an outlandish claim. The fact of the matter is you can't and therefore your definition of Islamist is completely incorrect and not rooted in established Islamic text. For example, chapter (Surah) 42 of the Qur'an is titled "Consultation" and portions of that chapter are what Mrs. Bhutto was referring to. A little over a thousand and a half years ago, Surah 42 established the idea of consultation of the masses to determine a leader. That is just one tiny example from hundreds I could cite.
If you frown upon "Islamists" who view the Qur'an as a source of political doctrine, but the Qur'an itself leans towards what you call parliamentary democracy which I assume you also believe, then does that mean you are also an Islamist (by your definition)?
I find your desire to differentiate Hasan al-Banna from Mrs. Bhutto to also be ignorant. If you are aware of what Hasan al-Banna stood for, then the Bhutto speech I linked earlier should sound very familiar. Why? Because many of the same tenants certal to al-Banna's writings are echoed in Bhutto's words. Remember, al-Banna was influential because he was able to deliver the message of reformists of the time and those who came before him to the people. Many of Bhutto's policies echo thinkers the same thinkers al-Banna put forth such as Afghani, Kamil, Abduh, Rida, and Arsalan.
Lastly, I leave you with a few choice quotes from an article written by Mrs. Bhutto in 1995 for Asiaweek:
"In an age when no country, no system, no community gave women any rights, in a society where the birth of a baby girl was regarded as a curse, where women were considered chattel, Islam treated women as individuals. "Believers, men and women are mutual friends. They enjoin what is just and forbid what is evil," says the Koran (12:71). Long ago Islam gave women rights that modern nations have conceded grudgingly and only under pressure."
She then discusses matters of Women in Islam with citations from the Qur'an throughout. Bhutto then concludes with:
"The fact that at present three Muslim countries have female heads of government gives assurance that the problems of women in Islamic societies can be seriously addressed. We, as women leaders, regard it as our religious and political duty to lead the struggle to restore the women's dignity that has been divinely defined for us in the Holy Koran. May we succeed."
As an elected Muslim woman running a nation, she used the equality preached in the Qur'an to guide her policies. Again, but your constipated definition, she is just another "Islamist" but the fact is that Islam cannot be separated from its concept of din or way of life. This includes Islamic influence on politics, economics, and general social policy. In my opinion, Bhutto is just another Muslim representing the majority. So now you can either call Bhutto an "Islamist" as well as indirectly labeling all 1 billion Muslims (or about a fifth of the world's population) or you can change your definition of the term.
Last but not least, just because JSTOR or any other archive of "scholarly" works references Islamist does not mean it is a widely accepted or proper term. The term became commonplace and was resurected post-9/11 because Islamophobes were search for a way to label their new enemy since those pinko commies were gone. By the way, archives or scholarly works as refer to followers of Islam as "Muhammadans" which is incorrect because Muslims do not worship Prophet Muhammad. However, by your logic, because the term appears then it is completely correct and appropriate. I'd suggest picking up Edward Said's "Orientalism" before you return to this discussion. The NPOV tags still stay because the article hasn't been fixed yet. Have a good day. 24.7.141.159 09:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamism is about politics

Just got done reading the above. It was stimulating. To be clear, I definitely want to talk things over and I encourage criticism. Here's my position: The term "Islamism" is useful, as evidenced in plenty of scholarly literature for at least 30 years (at least in the English-speaking world). If 9/11 had never happened, it would still exist.

User:24.7.141.159, you brought up the point that Islam is a social system. Yes, this is true. But this is not what this article addresses. Islamism is the belief that Islam should monopolize society (to varying degrees) and that substantial *political* legitimacy should be afforded to Islam. Not all Muslims believe this. We can argue about whether or not they are "true" Muslims, but that is not for an encyclopedia.

Legitimacy is not a correlation argument, though it is common to conceptualize it that way. Let me give you an example:

If you frown upon "Islamists" who view the Qur'an as a source of political doctrine, but the Qur'an itself leans towards what you call parliamentary democracy which I assume you also believe, then does that mean you are also an Islamist (by your definition)?

No. Correlation does not equal causation, my friend. This is a huge issue in political philosophy. If we say "the Qur'an is a source of constitutional law", that is *not* the same as saying "the Qur'an has many of our constitutional ideals". Causation generally means that ideas bear the rule of constitutional law. Until then, it is only a correlation. Islamists either do not respect this distinction or work to establish a causation relationship. Merely affirming the correlation, however, does not make one an Islamist. That is a straw man.

Now, here's the catch (and this is controversial). In many Muslim societies, the causation/correlation distinction is simply not observed. Specifically, there is no solid Western idea of "separation of church and state" (American or European varieties). Instead, we find societies with political systems and populaces which have not firmly decided on this (Turkey is a grey zone). This isn't bad - it just is. Islamists generally know the distinction, however, and assert that Islam should have causation status. They often describe this as a correlation, but they operate towards making Islam as law. It is their intentions here and the object of their work which is important.

Why does "Islamism", the label exist? The concept of Islamism largely exists from Western discourse on Islam. (I say "Western" and I infer secularism and modernism.) The concept exists to explain this lack of distinction between religion and politics. In the West, secularism is a very sure idea (it is also artificial, of course). In most Muslim countries, the word is less certain. Islamism describes philosophies that advocate a particular opposition to secularism. Not all Muslims have a strong position on secularism - many do not see it as a real thing at all. But Islamists do. They see political institutions which need Islam as an alternative to secularism. --Vector4F 08:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum. User:24.7.141.159, about the definition of Islamism. The "negative connotation" definition is too narrow (9/11 is not the major issue). The "classical" definition has merit but, I think, really does not capture the specific problems of Islam in a world where secular states hold major influence. Islamism developed largely as a revitalization of classical views of statehood+Islam, but also sought to counter modern secularization. The classical view was that Islam was a social system. The modern dilemma is that secularization threatens this goal. The Islamists come in and say that the classical view is dying (not true, but it seemed that way; see Cairo c.1900) and argue that it needs to be revived by fighting secularism. The Islamists not only have an agenda, but an opponent. Islamism starts as an attempt to strengthen the classical view, but ends up completely revising it. This contradiction runs throughout all Islamist movements, and has divided them for a long time (Muslim Brotherhood being a good example). --Vector4F 08:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Rather than reiterate a lot of the above, I'll just add a few directed observations. First, regarding the above debate - it is indisputable that there have been large secularization trends in the Islamic world in the past few years, part of which entails referencing the Qu'ran. Yes, one CAN find support for democracy in the Qu'ran, if one chooses to do so. But this is not what we see in 1400 years of history, actually. That position is a historical departure. Ijma did not mean "rule by the people" in the past, it meant rule by the ulema. It's classical usage is way more in line with vilayat-e-faqih than it is with democracy. My position is just that there should be a useful term to distinguish between secular reformists who promote novel interpretations of the Qu'ran and those who advocate various kinds of retrogressions to earlier Islamic forms. As suggested in the body of the article, the term "Islamist" should apply to those who are moving for a return to earlier established principles. Bhutto wasn't advocating a return to the law being defined by traditional fiqh, as happened in Afghanistan and Sudan. There should be a way to describe those who DO feel this way. Graft 21:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Both of you deserve long responses and I'll do that by Wednesday. Graft you said: But this is not what we see in 1400 years of history, actually. That position is a historical departure. Ijma did not mean "rule by the people" in the past, it meant rule by the ulema. It's classical usage is way more in line with vilayat-e-faqih than it is with democracy. Looking at the empires in Iraq, Spain, North Africa and even the Ottoman's, your statement would be incorrect. Many of these Islamic empires from hundreds of years ago until modern times have had high ranking officials who weren't Muslim. Even during the Prophet's time in Medina, the rule of government was squarely in the hands of democracy within the bounds of "god's word." I would like you to cite specific examples over the last 1400 of empires supporting your claims. 24.7.141.159 01:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual Sources of Islamism

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

There are two links the intro summary as of 44856929 [3]. I am not sure why they are there. The first [4] seems to be a blog entry detailing certain problems with Wikipedia, related to this article (the author apparently edits now and again). This seems inappropriate.

The second link [5] is to a commentary on the construction of the term "Islamism". The last sentence reads:

Muslims and non-Muslims must cooperate to understand the phenomenon, and identify the real culprits - neo-cons, and their fellow Islamists known as “moderate” - before battling this scourge.

I vote to remove both of these. If they have any value, I'd like to work on citing the information from better sources. First of course, we need to clarify exactly what we are trying to cite from these sources (it's not clear to me). Any comments? --Vector4F 04:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The first link from "Media Monitors Network" provides a lot of important information esp. for the Deen article. The second link from the "Independent Center for Strategic Studies and Analysis" provides a good background to the muslim POV. Since the muslim POV tends to be less represented on Wikipedia, I vote for keeping these links. Raphael1 14:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. First, these links should not be in the intro summary. No need for non-wiki links to be there. So if they stay in the article, we should move them. Also, I have no opposition to relevant information
About the first link: I assume we can agree this article is not about Deen, but about a loose grouping of political ideologies? If so, then we don't need to handle Deen here, only mention the Wikipedia article (for now, we have no other content about Deen in this article, as yet). Also, there is a conflict of interests in referencing someone's views about the Wikipedia article in the actual article. That's like citing the talk page in the article. Lastly, the linked article is about a critique of this Wikipedia article, which is self-referential (i.e. not a source, maybe further reading though). I support removing this link and drawing the relevant information from another source. The best way to do this might be to edit the Deen article or expanding this article to address this issue properly.
About the second link. We agree the article is POV. Let's move it to the bottom. I guess we can make a section on criticisms of the term Islamism. --Vector4F 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Update: I moved the two links to the link section under the subtitle "Criticisms of the term 'Islamism'". --Vector4F 00:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Debate over the introduction

I notice that the intro keeps changing, reverting, etc. As I write this, the current version is 45477409. Personally, I prefer the previous version 45311124 - it is shorter and more clear (in my mind). However, the current text is not bad or wrong (the "legal, social, political, etc." part is a little much, though) and part of it was previously editted by myself (so can't argue with that, eh?).

If anyone has a particular opinion on the intro, it would be great if you shared it so that future edits can consider your perspective. For example, I don't think the Deen link is necessary, though its not worth ceaseless reverting to change it. In fact, it may actually be more confusing, as Islamists have some heterodox views on Deen. We may need more room than the intro affords us to clarify this. That is, I think the intro should be minimalist. --Vector4F 03:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The additional sentence is a false dichotomy because it suggests Islamists do not belong in the category of peace-loving and are violent. This is not true. Many Islamists make use of violence to pursue their goals, but there are non-violent Islamists in many quarters, and violence is certainly not a hallmark of Islamism in the manner suggested by your sentence (or, actually, words like 'moderate' in general, which is highly POV). Graft 22:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
You are right, that violence is not a hallmark of Islamism, but it is what many people associate with Islamism. Actually my sentence tried to explain, that virtually all Muslims desire to live by islamic principles in legal, social, political, economic and political spheres of life and therefore could be called Islamists by this articles definition. But still most muslims support peace and reject the use of their religion to justify violence of course. Raphael1 23:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing POV tags

I'm removing the POV tags. The editor who added them appears to simply be trolling. I do not see any content additions by him, nor any attempts to edit the article to try to restore it to an NPOV state. He seems to be "crying wolf". Kyaa the Catlord 08:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So now you've determined for yourself the article is now compliant with the neutral POV perspective? Can you please tell us why you think this change was necessary? 24.7.141.159 09:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, ip-man, did you see my reasoning above? Instead of crying wolf, please be bold and make changes. Kyaa the Catlord 12:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've asked some tough questions to which I am still waiting for responses. If anything, this talk page shows that Wikipedia is in the process of defining the term which goes against WP:NOR. Furthermore, my extremely long arguments against the definition and examples are above for you to read. If you feel like you have something to contribute then please jump in above. As it stands, this article is completely anti-Islam and the NPOV tags will stay. Do not get into a revert war with me because we all know the consequences as such. 24.7.141.159 19:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Besides, ipman, you're confused about the NPOV policy. We are discussing a controversial subject here, there are many references to the fact that Islamism is a very debated topic. There are multiple views presented, but undue weight is not given to those contrary to the subject of the article. This is totally in line with the NPOV policy. Kyaa the Catlord 12:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wasted effort

Looking at the history, I see the makings of an edit tug-of-war. This POV tag dispute is pointless. There's nothing more POV than arguing about a POV tag. Every page on the Internet should have a POV tag. Is anyone somehow more or less convinced about an article by its tag (and should this be encouraged)? Does the tag do anything except advance a suspicion without evidence? And what exactly does debating about the tag accomplish? If anyone has a problem with the article, let's work on the problem and forget the tags.

I encourage any editor involved to drop the issue. Let the article's content speak for itself. NPOV is not about non-biased editors, but informed readers. That's as real as NPOV will ever be. --Vector4F 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Vector4F: I agree with your reasoning to remove the NPOV. If no one else wants to speak up, I vote to remove the tag. That does not change my belief the article is grossly anti-Islamic. 24.7.141.159 09:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Why am I bothering to argue with someone who doesn't care enough to have a userpage? I must be insane. I'm dropping this. Kyaa the Catlord 09:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamism/Archive_2&oldid=1266976634"