Talk:Islamism
I don't know nearly enough about contemporary Islam to mess with this, and the web is a dangerous place to start. I will offer below the reference to the Encyclopedia of the Orient, which was very useful for culture terms when I taught Islamic Art & Architecture last year. The term is certainly in use among Muslims of my acquaintance in America and in Jordan, though all those people are western-educated and definitely opposed to the politics they identify as Islamist, so it's not NPOV testimony. (one problem with the term - it was a common 19th century synonym meaning merely "Muslim" by analogy to "Protestantism," while the current usage is more by analogy to "Liberalism" or "Marxism.") --MichaelTinkler
http://lexicorient.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct-frame.pl?http://i-cias.com/e.o/islamism.htm
Agreed, as it stands, this article claims there is only one kind of political Islam, and that's radical fundamentalist militant Islam. But in fact all of islam has a political character, by definition. And there is a big difference between a 'fundamentalist' who believes in something, a 'radical' who seeks deep change in core institutions, and a 'militant' who picks up a gun... to defend his way of life. And all of those are quite different from a terrorist who goes to attack someone else's way of life (whether he thinks he's defending his own or not, which he may be).
So, this article is biased slanted crap, and the clock is ticking starting now. Anyone who wants to understand the actual political history of Islam in ten minutes is well advised to read haram, hima, isnah, early Muslim philosophy, ulema, tarika and Islamization of knowledge. Then come back here and say that all fundamentalists are radical, that all radicals are militants, or that all militants are terrorists.
A good source is G. E. Jansen's "Militant Islam", Pan Books, 1979, a British work that basically describes militant Islam as the traditional defender of Islamic values against the values-free colonizing West, and the most likely hope to democratize Muslim nations. And yes he wrote after the Iranian revolution, about its early successes and failures.
There is indeed a 'radical Islamist' but that term must rightly include such as Al-Faruqi adn his Islamization of knowledge. It's like saying Pope John Paul II is a 'radical Catholic', which he most certainly is - as much so as the opposing radicals (liberation theologians, etc.) he purged from the Church. Radical is about thought, militant is about action, and 'terrorist' is about a specific type of action somewhere other than 'home'.
There were a lot of recent additions to this article which were incorrect, out of place, as well as being violations of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This article is not the correct place to discuss at length Noam Chomsky's conspiracy theories about how Westeners lie about Arabs. Further, there were some totally false claims made, such as "Western historians believe ..X" as a way to discredit this article. The implication was that their claims were biased, and that Arabs have a different point of view. But this is wrong. Arab historians themselves say the same thing. Further, an odd claim was made about the nation of Iraq, claiming that it proved the so-called "western" ideas were wrong, since it has created a stable Muslim secular state. How could anyone even remotely knowledgeable about Iraq could write such a thing? The facts are quite the opposite: Iraq is well-known to both Arab and Western scholars as an extremely unstable state, and that there is a large Muslim Islamist sub-culture that wants to actively overthrow Hussein's secular regime. RK
Many Arab political leaders have gone public with their fears of this scenario, and have said that this is one of the reasons that they are against the possible new US war against Iraq. Arabs believe that such a war is likely to release pent-up Islamism, which could have a ripple effect through Iraq, and perhaps Egypt and Jordan. I find it odd to ignore these crucial facts, and misleading to claim that these Arab views are really "western views". That's anti-Western propaganda, and does not belong here. RK
Still no mention of roles of ulema and tarika. You can't talk about such modern groups as the Muslim Brothers without mentioning their historical precedents. The present article is hopelessly mired in the current generation of analysts, who believe that history began in 1979, and that this hasn't been going on for over a millenium.
- That is simply not true. In fact, you are being rude and insulting. Perhaps you think that insulting the views of moderate Arab and Western historians and professors of religion will gain you points amongst your peers, but it does not impress us.
- You clearly know nothing about the topic. Thus, no point debating you. Read the articles on tarika and ulema and then say with a straight face that secret societies resisting Christian colonization are not part of Islam for over 1000 years. Clearly, they are, and that's just an historical fact, not an opinion. The article does not reflect this reality at all.
- I am sorry, but you clearly have misunderstood me. I am not disagreeing with what you write in the above paragraph. If this is what you had been trying to refer to in your previous statements, you didn't make that clear. I don't have any problem with you adding information to this article on this fascinating topic. Just please don't attack me as someone who knows nothing about the topic; I do. The problem is that you initially were very vague in what you were writing about, and you kept mistakenly thinking that I was trying to refute specific points you had in mind. But that is not; in fact up until this moment I had no idea what specifically you wanted this article to mention. So I am in agreement with you on this issue. RK
Even the term "Islamism" is just stupid, because it implies there is some way to separate Islam from its 'ism'. Historically, there's no basis for that at all. It is wishful thinking. Right up through the 1980s, the term "Militant Islam" was applied, and that's still the correct term to apply to it today.
- I find your comments polemical, ignorant, and uninformed. For example, you are using a crude form of wordplay to "prove" that the word Islamism has no meaning. Sorry, but no dice. Even in the Arab world the terms Islamism and Islamist are well-accepted. You can't expect the rest of the world to rewrite their dictionary to match your desires. RK
- Of course the terms are 'well-accepted', as they propagate the idea that Islam can become non-political like some breeds of Christianity (although that too was wholly political in its early days). The term is legitimate if and only if one accepts that the division of politics and religion can be made. And, the majority of Islam, does not accept such divisions. The article just doesn't say that, and it must. It is you and your fellow academic dreamers who are rewriting the dictionary to match your desires - and fool Bush perhaps.
- Huh? What are you talking about? On this point I totally agree with you; this point should be in the article. Whoever said otherwise? I don't understand why you are criticising something I never said. Don't get me wrong, I am glad we agree on this point! I just don't get why you thought I believed differently on this topic. RK
I am reverting the recent vandalism to this article. I understand that some people here on Wikipedia are extremely anti-Western and pro-Arab, but that does not give anyone the right to insert bald-faced lies into any entry, for any reason. For example, the claims I deleted about Iraq are recognized as fiction by both Arab and Western scholars. I want to be very clear about this: The view that Stevert has added is not pro-Arab, nor does it add information. Rather, he is saying things that are indisputable false, and in a way that is extremely anti-Arab. Stevert keeps lying, by falsely claiming that only "Western" scholars have certain views about the origin of Islam. As Arab historians themselves have written, that is false. I find Stevert's attacks against moderate Arab scholars, as well as all Western scholars, grossly offensive. RK
Further, he keeps filling this entry will straw-man arguments; he takes arguments that practically no believes, dishonestly claims that they are mainstream Western views, and then attacks these views which aren't really held by reasonable people to begin with. Finally, this is supposed to be an article about the Islamist movement, aka Islamism. Sadly, this article keeps getting filled with the personal theories of an extreme anti-Western linguist (who does not research in this area at all!) RK
Guys, this page is 'not supposed to be about Noam Chomsky's pet theories. Stop filling this article with this views of this one man, who is (by the way) widely considered an extremist. He also is a linguist and a specialist in grammar and the development of langauges. He is not an middle-east expert. (He just talks about the subject a lot, like many of us. That does not make him an expert, no matter how many articles he writes in defense of Islamic radicalism, and how many articles he writes attacking the USA.) The argument from authoritity is never valid to begin with, but it is even more ridiculous when it is used from someone who is not an authority in the field at all! RK