
Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from the conservative religious views of Muslim fundamentalism. Islamist ideologies hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state. The goal of Islamists is to re-shape the state by implementing a conservative formulation of Islamic law. Most Islamist literature deals not with other religions, but with political ideologies, since Islamists were reacting against competing movements such as communism. Widespread poverty and consequent class tensions led to widespread socialist movements all over the Muslim world during the 20th century. But the collapse of the Soviet Union ultimately reduced the influence of leftist ideologies. Islamism has emerged as the remaining revolutionary ideology in Muslim societies, gaining much support through rising anti-Western sentiment due to control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Israel. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Islamist movements, along with other political movements inspired by Islam, gained increased attention in the Western media. The media often confuses the term ''Islamism'' with related terms such as ''Islam'', ''fundamentalism'', ''militant Islam'', and ''Wahhabism''. Although the groups and individuals representing these are not mutually exclusive, within academia, each term does have a distinct definition. Some Islamist groups have been implicated in terrorism and have become targets in the War on Terrorism. ''Neofascism and religion#Islam'' is an associated pejorative term. This topic is also discussed in Islam as a political movement. == History of Islamism == Islamist movements developed during the twentieth century in reaction to several forces. Following World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, and the subsequent dissolution of the Caliphate by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (founder of Turkey), some Muslims perceived their religion as in retreat, and felt that Western ideas were spreading throughout Muslim society, along with the influence of Western nations. During the 1960s, the predominant ideology within the Arab world was pan-Arabism which deemphasized religion and emphasized the creation of a socialist, secular state based on Arab nationalism rather than Islam. Governments based on Arab nationalism have found themselves facing economic stagnation and disorder. Some Muslims place the blame for these flaws in Muslim societies on the influx of "foreign" ideas; a return to the principles of Islam is seen as the natural cure. A persistent Islamist theme is that Muslims are persecuted by the West and other foreigners. In this context, Islamist ideas developed in several different settings. ===The Deobandi Movement=== In India, the Deobandi movement developed as a reaction to United Kingdom actions against Muslims and the influence of Sayed Ahmad Khan, who advocated the reform and modernization of Islam. Named after the town of Deoband, where it originated, the movement was built around Islamic schools (principally Darul Uloom Deoband) and taught an interpretation of Islam that encouraged the subservience of women, discouraged the use of many forms of technology and entertainment, and believed that only "revealed" or God-inspired knowledge (rather than human knowledge) should be followed. Though the Deobandi philosophy is puritanical and wishes to remove non-Muslim (i.e., Hindu or Western) influence from Muslim societies, it was not especially violent or Proselytization, confining its activity mostly to the establishment of ''madrassas'', or Muslim religious schools. They are a major sector of Muslims in the region (the followers of Sayed Ahmad Khan being a significant minority). The Taliban movement in Afghanistan was a product of the Deobandi philosophy and the ''madarassas''. ===Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi=== Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi was an important early twentieth-century figure in India, then, after independence from Britain, in Pakistan. Strongly influenced by Deobandi ideology, he advocated the creation of an Islamic state governed by sharia, Islamic law, as interpreted by Shura councils. Maududi founded the Jamaat-e-Islami in 1941 and remained at its head until 1972. His extremely influential book, "Towards Understanding Islam" (Risalah Diniyat in Arabic_language), placed Islam in modern context and enabled not only conservative ulema but liberal modernizers such as al-Faruqi, whose "Islamization of Knowledge" carried forward some of Maududi's key principles. Chief among these was the basic compatibility of Islam with an ethical scientific view. Quoting from Maududi's own work: :''Everything in the universe is 'Muslim' for it obeys God by submission to His laws... For his entire life, from the embryonic stage to the body's dissolution into dust after death, every tissue of his muscles and every limb of his body follows the course prescribed by God's law. His very tongue which, on account of his ignorance advocates the denial of God or professes multiple deities, is in its very nature 'Muslim'... The man who denies God is called Kafir (concealer) because he conceals by his disbelief what is inherent in his nature and embalmed in his own soul. His whole body functions in obedience to that instinct… Reality becomes estranged from him and he gropes in the dark.'' Inherent in these views was a total intolerance for rule by non-Muslims. ===The Muslim Brotherhood=== Maududi's ideas were a strong influence on Sayed Qutb in Egypt. Qutb was one of the key philosophers in the Muslim Brotherhood movement, which began in Egypt in 1928 and was banned (but still exists) following confrontations with Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser, who jailed Qutb and many others. The Muslim Brotherhood (founded by Hassan al Banna) advocated a return to sharia because of what they perceived as the inability of Western values to secure harmony and happiness for Muslims. Since only divine guidance could lead humans to be happy, it followed that Muslims should eschew democracy and live according to divinely-inspired sharia. The Brotherhood was one of the first groups to advocate jihad against all those who do not follow Islam. As al-Banna said: :[Muslim] lands have been trampled over, and their honor besmirched. Their adversaries are in charge of their affairs, and the rites of their religion have fallen into abeyance within their own domains, to say nothing of their impotence to broadcast the summons [to embrace Islam]. Hence it has become an individual obligation, which there is no evading, on every Muslim to prepare his equipment, to make up his mind to engage in jihad, and to get ready for it until the opportunity is ripe and God decrees a matter which is sure to be accomplished… ===Islamic Jihad movements=== This exhortation was followed by the Egyptian Egyptian organisation, responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat, but with a twist: Islamic Jihad focused its efforts on "apostate" leaders of Islamic states, those who were secular and introduced Western ideas and practice to Islamic societies. Their views were outlined in a pamphlet written by Muhammad Abd al-Salaam Farag, which said: "…there is no doubt that the first battlefield for jihad is the extermination of these infidel leaders and to replace them by a complete Islamic Order…" Another Islamic Jihad group emerged in Palestine as an offshoot of the Egyptian group, and began militant activity against the state of Israel, and consistently opposed itself to the policies of the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Yasser Arafat. ===Wahhabism=== Another influential strain of Islamist thought came from the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabists, who emerged in the 18th century led by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, also believed that it was necessary to live according to the strict dictates of Islam, which they interpreted to mean living in the manner that the prophet Muhammad and his followers had lived in during the seventh century in Medina. Consequently they were opposed to many innovations developed since that time, including the minaret, marked graves, and later television and radios. The Wahhabis also considered those Muslims who violated their strict interpretation to be heretics, and thus used violence against other Muslims. When King Ibn Saud founded Saudi Arabia, he brought the Wahhabists into power with him. With Saud's rise to prominence, Wahhabism spread, especially following the 1973 oil embargo and the glut of oil wealth that resulted for Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabists were proselytizers, and made use of their wealth to spread their interpretation of Islam. == Modern Islamism == Islamism went through its major political and philosophical developments in the early part of the twentieth century, but it was not until the 1980s that it became active in an international arena and rose to great prominence in the 1990s. The reasons for the rise of Islamism during this period are still disputed. The ideologies that had dominated the Middle East since decolonization such as Ba'athism, Arab Socialism, and Arab Nationalism had, by 1980, failed to attain the economic and political goals expected of them. By late 1980s the distinct Shi'ite version of political Islam had been drained of its vigour in the Iran-Iraq War. During the conflict against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, many Islamists came together to fight what they saw as an atheist invading force and were heavily funded by the United States. In his book ''Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam'' Gilles Kepel argues that the central importance of Islamism in the 1990s was a product of the Gulf War. Prior to 1990 organized political Islam had been mostly associated with Saudi Arabia, a nation founded on Wahabism and an ally of Islamist groups in Egypt and in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia, as a close ally of the West and with a strong interest in regional stability, played an important restraining role on Islamist groups. The Shi'ite clerics in Iran had long argued that Saudi Arabia was an apostate state, a puppet of the West that espoused a corrupted Islam. During the 1980s these accusations had little effect, largely because of their Shi'ite origin. However, Kepel argues that when Saddam Hussein turned on his former allies, he embraced this rhetoric, arguing that Saudi Arabia had betrayed its duty to protect the holiest sites of Islam. Kepel states that Saddam Hussein embraced Islamic rhetoric and trappings and tried to draw leading scholars and activists to his camp. Some of the main Islamist groups remained loyal to Saudi Arabia, but a number such as parts of the Muslim Brotherhood and Afghani mujahideen aligned themselves with Saddam. Far more groups declared themselves neutral in the struggle. According to Kepel the rapid defeat of Saddam did not end this rift. As Saddam had likely predicted Saudi Arabia had found itself in a severe dilemma, the only way to counter the Iraqi threat was to seek help from the west, which would immediately confirm the Iraqi allegations of Saudi Arabia being a friend to the west. To ensure the regime's survival Saudi Arabia accepted a massive western presence in the country and de facto cooperation with Israel causing great offence to many in Islamist circles. After the war Saudi Arabia launched a two pronged strategy to restore its security and leadership in Islamist circles. Those Islamist groups who refused to return under the Saudi umbrella were persecuted and any Islamists who had criticized Saudi regime were arrested or forced into exile, with most going to London. At the same time Saudi oil money began to flow freely to those Islamist groups who continued to work with the kingdom. Islamist madrasas around the world saw their funding greatly increased. More covertly Saudi money began to fund more violent Islamist groups in areas such as Bosnia and the former Soviet Union. Saudi Arabia's western allies mostly looked the other way seeing the survival of their crucial ally as more important than the problem of more money and resources flowing to Islamist groups. In the 1990s Islamist conflicts erupted around the world in areas such as Algeria, the Palestinian territories, Sudan, and Nigeria. In 1995 a series of terrorist attacks were launched against France. The most important development was the rise to power of the Deobandi Taliban in Afghanistan in 1996. In the Taliban ruled Afghanistan a number of anti-Saudi and anti-Western Islamist groups found refuge. Significantly, Osama bin Laden, a Saudi influenced by Wahhabism and the writings of Sayed Qutb, joined forces with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad under Ayman al-Zawahiri to form what is now called al-Qaida. A considerable effort has been made to fight Western targets, especially the United States. The United States in particular is a subject of Islamist ire because of its support of Israel, its presence on Saudi Arabian soil, what Islamists regard as its aggression against Muslims in Iraq, and its support of the regimes Islamists oppose. In addition some Islamists have concentrated their activity against Israel, and nearly all Islamists view Israel with hostility. Osama bin Laden, at least, believes that this is of necessity due to historical conflict between Muslims and Jews, and considers there to be a Jewish/American alliance against Islam. There is some debate as to how influential Islamist movements remain. Some scholars assert that Islamism is a fringe movement that is dying, following the clear failures of Islamist regimes like the regime in Sudan, the Wahhabist Saudi regime and the Deobandi Taliban to improve the lot of Muslims. However, others (e.g. Ahmed Rashid) feel that the Islamists still command considerable support and cite the fact that Islamists in Pakistan and Egypt regularly poll 10 to 30 percent in electoral polls which many believe are rigged against them. An alternative direction has been taken by many Islamists in Turkey, where the Islamist movement split into reformist and traditionalist wings in 2001. The reformists formed the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party (Turkey), which gained an overall majority in the Turkish parliament in 2002, and has sought to balance Islamic values with the requirements of a secular and democratic political system. Some in the Justice and Development Party see the Christian Democrat parties of Western Europe as a model, which has led some to question whether it is a genuinely Islamist movement. == Islamist movements == * International — Al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden * Afghanistan — Taliban * Algeria — Armed Islamic Group, Islamic Salvation Front, Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat * Egypt — Gama'at Islamiya * Lebanon — Hizballah * Iraqi Kurdistan — Islamic Movement in Kurdistan * Palestinian territories — Hamas * Central Asia — Hizb ut-Tahrir * South Asia — Jamaat-e-Islami (there are Jamaats in India, Pakistan and Wahhabism) * Turkey — Justice and Development Party (Turkey), Felicity Party (Turkey) * Bahrain Al Wefaq Asalah ==See Also== * Islamist terrorism * Neofascism and religion#Islam * Jihad * Egyptian Islamic Jihad * Mujahedeen * Sayyid Qutb * Hasan al-Banna * Yusuf al-Qaradawi * Qur'an * Sharia * Hadith * Jamaat-e-Islami * Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi * Abdullah Yusuf Azzam * Sayed Ahmad Khan * Khurshid Ahmad * Bat Ye'or, a scholar of dhimmi peoples * Steven Emerson * Daniel Pipes * Dominionism ==External links== * [http://www.icapi.org International Coalition Against Political Islam] * [http://www.ntpi.org No to Political Islam] * [http://www.danielpipes.org/article/304 ''Is Islamism Dead?: The Future of Islamism in the Muslim World''] * [http://www.danielpipes.org/article/954 ''Distinguishing between Islam and Islamism''] * [http://www.danielpipes.org/article/79 ''Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias''] * [http://www.meforum.org/article/447 ''Is Islamism a Threat?''] - a panel discussion hosted by Middle East Quarterly, December 1999 * [http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0994/9409021.htm ''Evaluating the Islamist Movement''] - written by Greg Noakes, an American Muslim who works at the Washington Report * [http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0695/9506017.htm ''Muslim Scholars Face Down Fanaticism''] - written by Aicha Lemsine, an Algerian journalist and author. * [http://www.ibb.gov/ontheline/00968.htm ''Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Islam''] - a discussion of Islamism * [http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/monographs/Leiken_Bearers_of_Global_Jihad.pdf Bearers of Global Jihad: Immigration and National Security after 9/11] * [http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR3104 List of Islamist websites] as of July 16, 2004 * [http://jihadwatch.org/ Discussion and Opinion regarding Terrorism and Islamic Reform ] ==Further reading== * ''Onward Muslim Soldiers'', Robert Spencer, Regnery Publishing, 2003 * ''Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Islam for Jews'', Khalid Duran with Abdelwahab Hechiche, The American Jewish Committee and Ktav, 2001 * ''The Islamism Debate'', Martin Kramer, University Press, 1997 * ''Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook'', Charles Kurzman, Oxford University Press, 1998 * ''The Vanguard of the Islamic Revolution: The Jama'at-i Islami of Pakistan'', Vali Nasr, Univ. of California Press, 1994 * ''The Failure of Political Islam'', Olivier Roy, Harvard Univ. Press, 1994 * ''The Challenge of Fundamentalism: Political Islam and the New World Disorder'', Bassam Tibi, Univ. of California Press, 1998 Islam
==Archives== Previous discussions on this article may be found here: *Talk:Islamism/Archive 1 *Talk:Islamism/Delete *Talk:Islamism/Archive 2 ==US Troops in Saudi Arabia == The US no longer has troops in Saudi Arabia. Islamists are angry about a presence the US once had in SA and that should be clarified. == Pascifist Islamists??? == ' Some Islamist groups advocate only a non-violent path to an Islamic system of government. ' ??? Welfare Party in Turkey springs to mind. Commitee for Defence of the Rights of the Saudi People is another. Many branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. That's off the top of my head. This article is littered with inaccuracies. Why is Islamism defined as conservative, for example? User: John Ball 22/07/04 9:50. :Can I see some documentation of this? Have you reviewed: ::I also want documentation for John Ball's interesting and unreferenced claims. User:RK ::: Well, the Welare Party is the current, elected, governing party in Turkey. User: John Ball ::::I've added a short para on the Justice and Development Party (Turkey) in this article. The Welfare Party have been defunct since 2000. The other party which emerged from their embers, the Felicity Party {Turkey) is much more conservative, although also has no truck with terrorism. Similarly for much of the religious opposition in Saudi, most of whom seem to be headquartered in the area of London I live in, although I know less there as an amateur Turkicist, not an Islamicist or an Arabist! ::::It does seem to me that RK and his doubters need to come to some sort of multiple POV consensus. You also probably need someone who actually is an Islamist here as well - surely putting out a call on Talk:Islam would bring some one in? I do not regard Daniel Pipes as an impartial source personally, but your mileage may, of course, vary. User:Gerry Lynch 14:08, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::::: Ah, yes. I forgot the morphing of Welfare into JDP. User: John Ball 27/07/04 16:35 **Islamist movements * International -- Al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden * Afghanistan -- Taliban * Algeria -- GIA , Islamic Salvation Front , GSPC * Egypt -- Gama'at Islamiya * Lebanon -- Hizballah * South Asia -- Jamaat-e-Islami (there are Jamaat's in India, Pakistan, Bengladesh, Sri Lanka, Indian-administered Kashmir, and Pakistan-administered Kashmir) * Southeast Asia -- Jemaah Islamiyah * Philippines -- Abu Sayyaf, Moro Islamic Liberation Front * West Bank and Gaza Strip - Hamas * Saudi Arabia -- Wahhabism Which of these is the non-violent one? User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 01:43, 29 May 2004 (UTC) ---- Fair criticism. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say something like "some Islamic thinkers advocate a non-violent..." See [http://www.tanzeem.org/resources/articles/article.asp?id=140] for example - there are plenty more - see this comprehensive reading list [http://members.tripod.com/nviusa/islam.htm] . But I think the confusion here stems from the fact that the definition of the term Islamist given on the page: "Islamism is an ideology which holds that Islam is not only a religion, but a system that also governs the politicial, economic and social imperatives of the state" is not the popular use definition of the term. Clearly the belief that Islam should be a governing system is one held by non-violent Muslims as well as violent ones, just as this is true of Christians and Marxists. Islamism, at is most basic form, is a claim about ends, violence is a choice of means. But as you say, the large and active Islamic groups in the world today all advocate armed struggle so perhaps the statement needs weakening. I think it's important to make clearly early that armed sturggle is not a necessary consequence of Islamism, though. Look at the page in more detail, Islam as a political movement has a solid introduction covering these points perhaps the addition should be "This article focuses on militant-Islamist groups, Some Islamists advocate only a nonviolent path to an Islamic system of government see Islam as a political movement for more discussion." Cheers Jamie User:Camipco 19:52, 29 May 2004 (UTC) ---- I understand your point, and agree that this is a matter of defining "Islamism" properly. The question to me is if ANY proper Islamist expouses non-violence, (I assume none do) and if you are correct when you say "armed sturggle is not a necessary consequence of Islamism" (I think perhaps you are not). We will need verification of course of these particulars. The link you supply (only the 2nd one worked for me) seem sufficient to show that some Muslims contemplate Pascifism, but do not display in my eyes an example of ''Islamist'' pascifism. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 21:43, 29 May 2004 (UTC) :Sam, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (the original Islamist movement, which serves as the inspiration for most Sunni Islamists) has for years espoused a philosophy of non-violent civil disobedience which has earned them the praise and support of a number of human rights groups in the face of repression by the Egyptian government. User:Graft 16:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) ::That is a distortion. The Muslimn brotherhood, an organization with many arms, has also been involved in promoting terrorism and murder. It has split into many groups, including al-Gama'a al-Islamiya (the Islamic Group). They worked with Islamic Jihad to assassinate Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadatin 1981. They only appear "peaceful" if you restrict yourself to those adherents who are peaceful, and ignore all those adherents who are not peaceful! But that is not intellectually honest; it gives us a distorted picutre of the movement as a whole. User:RK ::: Wrong again, RK, as you say al-Gama'a al-Islamiya is a split from the MB, ie: it is NOT the MB. User: John Ball 29/07/04 13:40. :::I've heard a lot of the same, that the Brotherhood is the ruling force behind Islamic Jihad and so on. I'm not sure what the truth is; their commitment to non-violence has always seemed more tactical than ideological and thus open to compromise. If someone could find some of their writing on the subject of non-violence that would be extremely useful. Unfortunately I have no books on the subject. User:Graft 13:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) ---- Good edit. The hard part is in distinguishing between muslims generally, and Islamists in particular. In my experience "Islamist" is largely a perjorative, similar to Fascism or Communism, and used to signify "bad muslim". In short I feel it is a label only used by the opposition, and thus quite tricky. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 01:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC) ==Definitions== The term "Islamism" is not a perjorative, and for that matter, neither is Fascism and certainly not Communism. Each of these terms have a specific meaning in academia. "Islamism" was not a term coined by opposition but scholars of political science and sociology who observed this phenomenon. In short, Islamists are those people believe that Islam is not only a religion but that it also has a specific social, economic and political agenda. Now, you can argue over whether Islamists are Muslims, but you can not say that these two terms refer to exactly the same concept. The supposed "founding fathers" of Islamism are generally recognized as being Syed Qutb of Egypt and Abul 'ala Maududi of India/Pakistan. Certainly, the ideas that these guys proposed were not representative of the entire Muslim spectrum, and expecially not of the ulema at the time. My point is that the term "muslim" refers to anyone who claims to be a follower of "Islam" in any interpretation. "Islamist" refers to someone following one specific interpretation of the religion. --User:Katangoori 15:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC) :The first sentance is particularly questionable, but we generally appear to agree on the facts, if not their interpretation. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 18:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC) ::Okay, yeah, maybe my first sentence is questionable. May be I should say instead that Islamism, Fascism, and Communism are sometimes used as perjoratives by sections of the lay public and media, however they each also have a specific academic meaning which is not in any way perjorative. My hope is that we use the academic meanings because as terms they are more useful to us in that they correspond to well recognized observations, theories, and models of how to interpret the social actions of each group. --User:Katangoori 15:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) :::I would argue that Islamism is unique amongst that list in being used exclusively by non-members. No Islamsist calls themselves one, unlike Communists, Fascists, etc.. who sometimes do call themselves by those names. Also the use of the term by academics in no way reduces the inherently negative and IMO pejorative connotations. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 15:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) ::::The fact that no Islamist calls themself "Islamist" does not mean that the term is inappropriate. Most racists probably would not accept the label either, but that does not mean that label is inappropriate, or perjorative. The identity itself may have negative connotations, but the -label- is not a slur. Compare to "pinko", which is definitely perjorative. User:Graft 16:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) :::::I didn't mean to suggest that the lable was innapropriate, but was rather exploring the usage and definition of the term. I would say that "racist" is definitely a perjorative, having more negativity attached to those it is used against than most racial slurs themselves these days (nigger is rapidly becomming a term of affection, for example). I don't intend to make a value judgement about Islamists nor those who lable them in this article, but rather to ensure that the definition we produce is congruous with that in general use, rather than being ideosyncratic or sanitized. IMO the term is used with the same meaning within the media, academia, and the general public. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 21:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) ::::::Why not consider 'islamist' as a handy shorthand for 'islamic fundamentalist'? --User:Rudi Dierick 14:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) Because the latter is an even fuzzier term? And in the way they are usually used, less specific.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 21:09, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC) ==Merge?== Due to a past dispute, the related article Islam as a political movement was created as a copy of this one, which was allegedly being censored. Having parallel pages did not solve the dispute, but the articles have existed separately since that point. There is now an attempt to have the pages merged back together (specifically, to merge Islamism into Islam as a political movement). However, they both have undergone significant changes, and their content is markedly different. Furthermore, I think their titles reflect distinct subject matter: ''Islam as a political movement'' indicates an article about the religion of Islam as a political force throughout its history; ''Islamism'' should be an article about a specific political movement that developed in the 20th century among certain elements within Islam. The first article is broader, and deals with a subject that will continue to evolve as long as Islam itself exists. The second article has a more narrow focus, and deals with a phenomenon whose future is less certain - it may grow, shrink, or even die. Since I find a valuable purpose in having both pages, I definitely oppose merging them at this point. Naturally, both pages should link to each other, and the specific phenomenon of Islamism should be discussed, though more briefly, in Islam as a political movement. It is possible that some of the content currently on one page might be more appropriately relocated to the other. If people have other concerns with the content of either page, they should feel free to raise them, but I don't think merging these pages is the solution. --User:Michael Snow 21:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) == recently addede and deleted material == Confirmed. The recently added material was written by the banned user, EntmootsOfTrolls. It was a serious of off-topic meanderings denying that Islamism really existed, attacking the west and Christianity, and a denial that Islamic societies really are Islamic. I have thus removed much of this material. User:RK 12:36, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC) Graft, it is a violation of NPOV policy to remove views and statements that you personally disagree with. If you have better stats, please show them. But the Muslim expert quotes is far more knowledgeable on the subject than you or I. You can't delete his estimates based entirely on your ad homenim attack. User:RK 00:11, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC) Graft writes "RK, you can't add whatever crap you want to this article simply because it supports your thesis that America is teeming with Islamist radicals." :Readers should be aware that I never said any such thing, and neither did any of the sources I quoted. User:RK 20:14, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC) :RK, you can't add whatever crap you want to this article simply because it supports your thesis that America is teeming with Islamist radicals. For example, Steve Emerson was exposed as a fraudulent schmuck. See [http://www.counterpunch.org/emerson05192003.html this article] for a description of the newspaper that caught him in the act. Besides that, common sense should tell you that 100,000 is an enormous number, and if there really were this many "hard-core" Islamic fundamentalists (which is about 2% of the Muslim population of the US), there would have been dozens of terrorist incidents in the US by now. Please remove the Steve Emerson junk yourself, and the Kabbani quote (since he does NOT justify his numbers, it is simply speculation - there is no call to quote speculation as authoritative) and in the future be more careful about the sources you quote. User:Graft 05:14, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::Sorry, but Steve Emerson is universally acknowledged as an expert on this issue. Wikipedia NPOV policy demands that we include points of view, even if we happen to find one author that disagrees with this POV. User:RK 20:12, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC) :::Did you even read the article I linked to? Steve Emerson is a lying fraudster. Read [http://groups.google.com/groups?q=steve-emerson&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=393BA5B8.BB043014%40eastky.net&rnum=20] and [http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/03/05/emerson/index.html] for even more. Do you suggest we also go around quoting David Irving authoritatively on the Holocaust, because NPOV policy demands that we include points of view? User:Graft 20:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::::Yes, I did read this out of context smear job. It is a an attack by someone with an agenda. It represents the point of view of a small group of people who have anger towards people write about radical Islam. However, the fact remains that Steve Emerson is an established authority on this subject, and his views are accepted as such by many mainstream historians, as well as by moderate Muslims. Your comparison of him to a holocaust denier is out of of bounds, and false on its face. Again, you fail to understand that just because you and a handful of others do not lile this man, does not mean that everyone else does. User:RK :::::Steve Emerson's prominent witch-hunt of Sami al-Arian was also carefully dissected by a number of major papers, including the Miami Herald, and found to be totally without basis, an utter fabrication. Emerson has refused to admit this, and insists that everyone else is wrong (including the FBI, INS, and all the papers that said he was wrong). The fact that Bill O'Reilly has him on the Factor does not make him an established authority, nor does the fact that he received a measure of attention following 9/11. Many mainstream figures have noted that this man is a liar and spreads false stories. User:Graft 00:49, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) :As to the hartford Seminary study, it's available [http://www.cair-net.org/mosquereport/Masjid_Study_Project_2000_Report.pdf here (pdf)]. Your text is hardly appropriate. The study says that only 21% (one in five, not one in three) of mosques teach a literal interpretation of Islam, rather than leaving questions open to modern interpretation (70%). This would be analagous to Orthodox and Reformed Judaism, and certainly does NOT mean that these mosques are Islamist. Your two-thirds contention is simply wrong - the study does not at all suggest that mosques preach that America is moral. It doesn't even ask that question. It asks about the personal beliefs of the mosque representatives surveyed. I'd bet a good percentage of Christians in this community think this country is immoral under the rule of liberal elites and homosexuals. In any event, this STILL doesn't make you an Islamist. So, I'm not sure what the point of your highly-misleading text is. User:Graft 05:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) Here's the text: ''A study by the Hartford Seminary showed that one third of mosques in the USA preach a fundamentalist form of Islam, while two thirds of the leaders of American mosques preach that America is immoral.'' You'll note it reads "1/3", not "1/5". Also, the relevance of this study to Islamism is unclear. Even assuming that 1/5 of mosques teach a literal interpretation of the Quran, this does NOT make them Islamist - there's much more to being Islamist than that, agreed? Furthermore, the study does NOT say that 2/3 of leaders "preach" anything - it only inquires about their personal belief. Would you care to defend this text, or shall I simply remove it again? User:Graft 20:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::Again, you are still attacking beliefs I do not have. You still are suffering from the misimpression that someone is trying to prove that most American Muslims are fanatics. I think that the real problem is that there is no one good reference for the extent of Islamism in America or across the world. As such, in accord with our NPOV policy, I am offering a number of estimates from totally unrelated sources. If you know of better estimates, please add them as well! But we shouldn't remove any estimate related to this phenomenon, and then add a strawman reference to Daniel Pipes. This has nothing to do with him. Let us look for as many sources on estimates as possible; info from newer surveys would be of special interest. User:RK 21:36, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC) :::You win! (No, I am not being sarcastic.) Graft, I am removing a section of the material based on your discussions in the Talk page. Also, I added two more sentences in another section to provide more context. This should clarify that these estimates do not imply that most Muslims are not Islamists or terrorists. And I am still open to other sources you would like to bring! User:RK 02:17, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC) ::::Steve Emerson still remains in the text, now with no sort of descriptor at all. I'd be interested to hear what other's opinions are on maintaining his quote. User:Graft 16:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::::Steve Emerson is not a commentator in good standing. Everyone knows he is a political activist, even the people who believe his claims. --User:Zero0000 23:52, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Causes of anti-western sentiment== I'm taking exception to the last clause of the second paragraph, but I don't want to change it without some discussion. It currently reads: ''gaining much ground through appropriating anti-Western sentiment which has emerged due to the occupation of the Palestinian-populated West Bank by Israel.'' Now I will not dispute that the Israeli control of the West Bank/Gaza is one continuing cause of anti-Western sentiment throughout the Arab world; but there are certainly others -- the CIA led overthrow of Iran's government in the early 1950's, to name one example. I'd suggest striking the whole implied causal link, and changing anti-Western to anti-Western/colonialist. Given the past volatility of this page, though, can I get some consensus first? :However, Israeli occupation is continually cited by Islamists and their sympathizers as one of the most egregious sins of the West; the CIA overthrow of Mossadegh, by contrast, might be said to have been redeemed by the Islamic Revolution in 1979. I think the emphasis on Israel/Palestine is appropriate since it is given such prominence by Islamists, and in general arouses a huge amount of sympathy in the Arab world, something Westerners may not appreciate. User:Graft 03:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Emphasis I don't mind, it's the allegation of causality I object to. User:Mdwyld 04:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I agree with Mdwyld. The way it's written suggests that "anti-western sentiment" never existed until 1967. User:Corvus 06:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Recent deletions regarding Wahhabism == Hello Hadj, Just curious why you removed some things - for example, that al-Wahhab saw those who did not follow his philosophy as non-Muslims (e.g., if you visited the grave of some Sufi saint, you were not a Muslim) and made use of violence against non-Muslims. Do you dispute that this is true? User:Graft 15:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I'm not discussing if it happend or not; I'm discussing the teachings of Salafis and Wahhabism and what they are telling us. But according to what I've read till know on Salafism/Wahhabism there is no actual violence against deviated Islam groups. Instead of a violent Jihad against these people they initiated a Jihad with their tongue. As I may quote from the famous Saudi scholar, Sheikh Munajidd:"It is well known that jihad against the hypocrites is not like jihad against the kuffaar, because jihad against the hypocrites is fought with knowledge and argument, whilst jihad against the kuffaar is fought with swords and arrows. " :So till now I have no indication to support your statement User:Hadj 20:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::Since there may be many things of which we are ignorant, in general it's not good practice to go and remove those things that are outside our scope of knowledge. In this case, it's pretty easy to ascertain that al-Wahhab in fact initiated several violent conflicts and fought many battles against other Muslims, most notably the Ottoman Turks. User:Graft 00:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) If you have any proof to back this up and have the source(s) telling that the religious sources of the Wahhabies force them to use violence against other Muslims I would happily to see that being written with the sources. User:Hadj 09:06, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Unclear words = unclear info == I have made some minor/major changes to the wording of the second paragraph as I feel it offers a confusing explanation with words hinting at things but not making them clear. I have tried to make this opening paragraph simply expositional rather then having views. I have removed 'Nationalism, Communism, Fascism, etc.' as, despite the word against in the next sentence, it suggests they are components of Islamist thought. The words 'deals with' emphasises this as Islamism probably deals with liberalism and capitalism as well. I have also changed the word 'appropriating' as this suggests they borrowed it off of someone else which makes you want to ask who. Although 'adopting' could be accused of that it does not, I don't think, presuppose a political continuity that is not properly explained. I have no problem if you wish to clearly say that it is based on a particular ideology but hinting at links just gives it a distorted, confused feel. User:MeltBanana 21:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Minor edits == :''Copied from User talk:Graft and User talk:iFaqeer Hi I! Nice edit on Islamism, but just a note: usually, the minor edit tag is reserved for edits that do not substantially affect meaning, e.g. typos or insertion of conjunctions, etc. Thus, even the addition of a single word may not necessarily be a 'minor edit', depending on what the word is. This is a useful convention to follow since some people keep minor edits hidden, and it would be rude to slip contentious changes in meaning past their notice. (Perhaps your flag was merely an error - in which case I apologize for my presumption). Anyway, have a nice day! User:Graft 16:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) :You're right about the error. I have set my preferences to have the "This is a minor edit" flag to be "on" by default, so the wikification, grammar, and text edits that I am more often making (for subjects related to South Asia, Pakistan, Islam, etc.) aren't flagged as major changes. The problem is that I had stopped paying attention that flag. And now that you have mentioned it, I have recently created whole new articles (in fact, half of the entries at :Category:Chiefs of Army Staff, Pakistan) with that flag set. Thanks for the reminder. I did not intend to slip anything by anyone. I fully realize that the changes at the top of Islamism are pretty fundamental, and didn't mean to imply otherwise.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 23:23, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC) == Some help on Template talk:Timeline of Islamist militancy! == According to Pename, he checked the Oxford English Dictionary from Oxford University Press and it says that Islamism is as follows: Islamism / 'zlmz()m/, / 's-/ → n. Islamic militancy or fundamentalism. - DERIVATIVES Islamist ( also Islamicist ) n. & adj. SOURCE: "Islamism n." The Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004;
He also found the following:
Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation. Became the favored state policy during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 1876–1909) and was adopted and promoted by members of the ruling bureaucratic and intellectual elites of the empire. With the rise of colonialism, became a defensive ideology, directed against European political, military, economic, and missionary penetration. Posed the sultan as a universal caliph to whom Muslims everywhere owed allegiance and obedience. Sought to offset military and economic weakness in the Muslim world by favoring central government over the periphery and Muslims over non-Muslims in education, office, and economic opportunities. Ultimately failed and collapsed after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Resurrected during the resurgence of Islam after World War II. Expressed via organizations such as the Muslim World League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which seek to coordinate Islamic solidarity through political and economic cooperation internationally. Has also served as an important political tool in recruiting all-Muslim support against foreign aggressions.
SOURCE: "Islamism" Oxford Dictionary of Islam. John L. Esposito, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004 ;
Based on this information, it would appear that this article has missing information. Would someone care to comment? - User:Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:: Ahem. I just noticed your note to Mustafaa, I think it was, and came over here. The earlier Islamism described in the Oxford Dictionary of Islam did indeed exist. I've been proofreading books about early 20th century Islamic politics for Distributed Proofreaders, and it is just as the Dictionary says. The Ottomans were wavering between rejecting and accepting European ways. Sultan Abdulhamid wanted to stand up against the Europeans, and tried to leverage his formal position as Caliph to unite all Muslims everywhere behind him. Apparently lots of Muslims in various British colonies supported him, not that they had the power to do much. I'd call this Islamism from the top down, a Caliph trying to revive the Caliphate. The Islamism that frightens people now is Islamism from the bottom up. It's protest against various autocratic and corrupt Arabic/Muslim governments, perceived as supported by the U.S. and tainted with modern ways. Very different Islamisms.
:::Interesting. Is it called Islamism in those texts?
:::: Not that I remember. The particular book I'm remembering is out of the proofreading rounds and probably in post-processing, where I can't get at it. But I'll check -- it might be done by now. User:Zora 20:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::::Just coincidentally, I am currently reading Seven Pillars of Wisdom by Lawrence of Arabia and that brought back to mind what the stuff you are talking about was called. He refers to the:
::::::''the hierarchic conception of Islam and the pan-Islamic theories of the old Sultan''" See: [http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/l/l42s/chapter4.html]
:::::BTW, I am reading that book for the first time. What was I thinking?!!! It's a must-read. (Just keep in mind the time and place; which in your case shouldn't be that big a problem.) User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 23:26, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
:::I am not averse to providing both definitions. But opposed to blurring the difference between either or both of those and Islam in general.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 19:34, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
:: I believe I've also seen the earlier Islamism described as the Khalifat movement. Would have to check that. User:Zora 12:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::Didn't want to let this go without an explanation. The Khilafat Movement (not Khalifat; a distinction that points to its not being based in the Arab world) was a movement amongst the Muslims of British India (the largest single Muslim community in one geo-political entity at the time, if I am not wrong) that agitated to try and make sure the British, victors of WWI, kept the promise made at Treaty of Versailles that the Caliph would not be abolished. The parallel would be, say, if, after WW II, the victors had proposed abolishing the Papacy (not the Pope's temporal role as a political ruler) because, as some believe, of the Church's non-opposition of the Nazis and Catholics in, the US had started a movement to pressure their government to not let it/make it happen. Just because they didn't want the Papacy abolished would not make them supporters of the Pope's old role as hegemon of Europe.
:::And being from South Asia, I can assure you that the people supporting the Khilafat Movement (which included Gandhi) were not anywhere close to political viewpoint and beliefs of today's Islamists. In fact, the Great Arab Revolt of Lawrence of Arabia fame was fighting the Ottomans and helped hasten the end of the Khilafah/Caliphate.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 21:21, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
:It would help if he had used a resource that one of us could get to. And the reference he is quoting is not a dictionary, but a reference library that is quoting one very specific writer who has his own POV. Describing something that lasted almost 1400 years as having "failed" stands out, for example.
:The dictionaries I have access to give the following:
::''[http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/I0247900.html http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/I0247900.html]:''
::''SYLLABICATION: Is·lam·ism''
::''PRONUNCIATION: s-lämzm, z-, sl-, z-''
::''NOUN: 1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life. 2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.''
::'''OTHER FORMS: Is·lamist —ADJECTIVE & NOUN''
:or:
::''[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Islamist&x=0&y=0 http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Islamist&x=0&y=0]''
::''Main Entry: Is·lam·ism'''
::''Pronunciation: is-'lä-"mi-z&m, iz-, -'la-; 'iz-l&-'''
::''Function: noun'''
::''the faith, doctrine, or cause of Islam'''
::''- Is·lam·ist /-mist/ noun'''
:A "revivalist" movement can hardly have existed since the beginning of a religion's history.
:Furthermore, if you go to any encyclopedia, you get different, or maybe more specific results. For example, a search of the sort:
::''http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Islamist&submit=Find&source=MWBOX''
:gives links to a very specific type and family of organization, the Islamic Salvation Front, an Algerian Islamist political party, the Armed Islamic Group, an Algerian militant group affiliated with the same, Egyptian Islamists and so on.
:Then just google "Islamist" and see what pops up outside of Wikipedia:
::''[http://www.google.com/search?q=Islamist http://www.google.com/search?q=Islamist]
:Dictionaries often only provide the literal meaning of a word, usually the basic linguistic meaning. And those meanings evovle with time. And this evolution happens in the context of academic discussions and common use. For example, the definition of "fundamentalist" in one of the same dictionaries is:
::''[http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/F0362700.html http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/F0362700.html]''
::''fundamentalism
::''SYLLABICATION: fun·da·men·tal·ism
::''PRONUNCIATION: fnd-mntl-zm
::''NOUN: 1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. 2a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture. b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
::''OTHER FORMS: funda·mental·ist —ADJECTIVE & NOUN
::''funda·mental·istic —ADJECTIVE
:while another gives
::''[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fundamentalist&x=0&y=0 http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fundamentalist&x=0&y=0]''
::''Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
::''Pronunciation: -t&l-"i-z&m
::''Function: noun
::''1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
::''2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
::''- fun·da·men·tal·ist /-t&l-ist/ noun
::''- fundamentalist or fun·da·men·tal·is·tic /-"men-t&l-'is-tik/ adjective
:The second meaning is mainly of late 20th century usage. If one had used the word "Fundamentalist" in the early 20th century, it would have meant a very specific type of Christian. Now it can mean people from several religions.
:The point? The point is that a literalist dictionary meaning belongs in the dictionary. And they evolve. Dictionaries are updated. In an encyclopedia, we capture what it means in the wider world and present information that helps people understadn their world. And hopefully as complete a picture as we collectively can. Google "Islamist" and see what comes up. I would agree and support something in the beginning that said something like "Islamist is sometimes taken in a literalist sense to mean any political movement that takes Islam as it's guiding principle. However, it usually refers to..." and then what is there now.
:My tuppence 'orth.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 05:47, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
==Another source==
Martin Kramer has written a very long article on the subject. Would anyone care to comment, or to extract the information from his references and add to this article? The link is [http://www.meforum.org/article/541]. - User:Ta bu shi da yu 12:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Further to what the OED says ==
Att the risk of being repetitive, I need to requote the article that Pename gave us from the OED:
----
Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation. Became the favored state policy during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 1876–1909) and was adopted and promoted by members of the ruling bureaucratic and intellectual elites of the empire. With the rise of colonialism, became a defensive ideology, directed against European political, military, economic, and missionary penetration. Posed the sultan as a universal caliph to whom Muslims everywhere owed allegiance and obedience. Sought to offset military and economic weakness in the Muslim world by favoring central government over the periphery and Muslims over non-Muslims in education, office, and economic opportunities. Ultimately failed and collapsed after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Resurrected during the resurgence of Islam after World War II. Expressed via organizations such as the Muslim World League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which seek to coordinate Islamic solidarity through political and economic cooperation internationally. Has also served as an important political tool in recruiting all-Muslim support against foreign aggressions.
SOURCE: "Islamism" Oxford Dictionary of Islam. John L. Esposito, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004
----
Let's lay this to rest.
OK, I was confused to start off with, but here's how I take this: the sentence "Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation." It seems to me that what's being said here is that the concept of "sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims" has existed since the early days of Islam, and not the term "Islamism" itself. I mean, it can't mean that or it'd be factually wrong because ''Islamism'' comes from the French word ''islamisme'', which was itself coined by Voltaire, who existed in the 18th century. The context of what is written would also bear this out because the next sentence is "Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation."
It seems Pename didn't read this carefully enough. Heck, I know I didn't! I thought it meant the same thing Pename meant when I first gave it a cursory read. But then, that's what happens when you use a non-full sentence like "Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims". It means that a certain ambiguity creeps into the text, and can cause confusion. Who would have thought the OED would write such a thing? - User:Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==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)
-User: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" User: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. User: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. - User: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 User:OneGuy 23:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::::I have made the attributions clearer. - User: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. User: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. - User: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 User: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. - User: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 User: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. - User:SimonP 08:40, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
== REvert ==
''Some anon user put this in Islam Jihad Movement section''. Reverted and put comment here. User: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? —User:MirvUser talk:Mirv 15:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
:Well, they both end in "ism". ;-) User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 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.
::--User: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. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 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. —User:MirvUser talk: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 Wikipedia: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." - User: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
== 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. User: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. - User: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. - User: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. User: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. - User:Mustafaa 22:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== 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. User:Grenavitar 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. User: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. User:Grenavitar 23:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Islamism:
Islamism
Islamism
Islamism/Archive_1
Islamism/Archive_2
Islamism/Delete
Islamisme
Islamism
Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from the conservative religious views of Muslim fundamentalism. Islamist ideologies hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state. The goal of Islamists is to re-shape the state by implementing a conservative formulation of Islamic law. Most Islamist literature deals not with other religions, but with political ideologies, since Islamists were reacting against competing movements such as communism. Widespread poverty and consequent class tensions led to widespread socialist movements all over the Muslim world during the 20th century. But the collapse of the Soviet Union ultimately reduced the influence of leftist ideologies. Islamism has emerged as the remaining revolutionary ideology in Muslim societies, gaining much support through rising anti-Western sentiment due to control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Israel. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Islamist movements, along with other political movements inspired by Islam, gained increased attention in the Western media. The media often confuses the term ''Islamism'' with related terms such as ''Islam'', ''fundamentalism'', ''militant Islam'', and ''Wahhabism''. Although the groups and individuals representing these are not mutually exclusive, within academia, each term does have a distinct definition. Some Islamist groups have been implicated in terrorism and have become targets in the War on Terrorism. ''Neofascism and religion#Islam'' is an associated pejorative term. This topic is also discussed in Islam as a political movement. == History of Islamism == Islamist movements developed during the twentieth century in reaction to several forces. Following World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, and the subsequent dissolution of the Caliphate by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (founder of Turkey), some Muslims perceived their religion as in retreat, and felt that Western ideas were spreading throughout Muslim society, along with the influence of Western nations. During the 1960s, the predominant ideology within the Arab world was pan-Arabism which deemphasized religion and emphasized the creation of a socialist, secular state based on Arab nationalism rather than Islam. Governments based on Arab nationalism have found themselves facing economic stagnation and disorder. Some Muslims place the blame for these flaws in Muslim societies on the influx of "foreign" ideas; a return to the principles of Islam is seen as the natural cure. A persistent Islamist theme is that Muslims are persecuted by the West and other foreigners. In this context, Islamist ideas developed in several different settings. ===The Deobandi Movement=== In India, the Deobandi movement developed as a reaction to United Kingdom actions against Muslims and the influence of Sayed Ahmad Khan, who advocated the reform and modernization of Islam. Named after the town of Deoband, where it originated, the movement was built around Islamic schools (principally Darul Uloom Deoband) and taught an interpretation of Islam that encouraged the subservience of women, discouraged the use of many forms of technology and entertainment, and believed that only "revealed" or God-inspired knowledge (rather than human knowledge) should be followed. Though the Deobandi philosophy is puritanical and wishes to remove non-Muslim (i.e., Hindu or Western) influence from Muslim societies, it was not especially violent or Proselytization, confining its activity mostly to the establishment of ''madrassas'', or Muslim religious schools. They are a major sector of Muslims in the region (the followers of Sayed Ahmad Khan being a significant minority). The Taliban movement in Afghanistan was a product of the Deobandi philosophy and the ''madarassas''. ===Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi=== Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi was an important early twentieth-century figure in India, then, after independence from Britain, in Pakistan. Strongly influenced by Deobandi ideology, he advocated the creation of an Islamic state governed by sharia, Islamic law, as interpreted by Shura councils. Maududi founded the Jamaat-e-Islami in 1941 and remained at its head until 1972. His extremely influential book, "Towards Understanding Islam" (Risalah Diniyat in Arabic_language), placed Islam in modern context and enabled not only conservative ulema but liberal modernizers such as al-Faruqi, whose "Islamization of Knowledge" carried forward some of Maududi's key principles. Chief among these was the basic compatibility of Islam with an ethical scientific view. Quoting from Maududi's own work: :''Everything in the universe is 'Muslim' for it obeys God by submission to His laws... For his entire life, from the embryonic stage to the body's dissolution into dust after death, every tissue of his muscles and every limb of his body follows the course prescribed by God's law. His very tongue which, on account of his ignorance advocates the denial of God or professes multiple deities, is in its very nature 'Muslim'... The man who denies God is called Kafir (concealer) because he conceals by his disbelief what is inherent in his nature and embalmed in his own soul. His whole body functions in obedience to that instinct… Reality becomes estranged from him and he gropes in the dark.'' Inherent in these views was a total intolerance for rule by non-Muslims. ===The Muslim Brotherhood=== Maududi's ideas were a strong influence on Sayed Qutb in Egypt. Qutb was one of the key philosophers in the Muslim Brotherhood movement, which began in Egypt in 1928 and was banned (but still exists) following confrontations with Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser, who jailed Qutb and many others. The Muslim Brotherhood (founded by Hassan al Banna) advocated a return to sharia because of what they perceived as the inability of Western values to secure harmony and happiness for Muslims. Since only divine guidance could lead humans to be happy, it followed that Muslims should eschew democracy and live according to divinely-inspired sharia. The Brotherhood was one of the first groups to advocate jihad against all those who do not follow Islam. As al-Banna said: :[Muslim] lands have been trampled over, and their honor besmirched. Their adversaries are in charge of their affairs, and the rites of their religion have fallen into abeyance within their own domains, to say nothing of their impotence to broadcast the summons [to embrace Islam]. Hence it has become an individual obligation, which there is no evading, on every Muslim to prepare his equipment, to make up his mind to engage in jihad, and to get ready for it until the opportunity is ripe and God decrees a matter which is sure to be accomplished… ===Islamic Jihad movements=== This exhortation was followed by the Egyptian Egyptian organisation, responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat, but with a twist: Islamic Jihad focused its efforts on "apostate" leaders of Islamic states, those who were secular and introduced Western ideas and practice to Islamic societies. Their views were outlined in a pamphlet written by Muhammad Abd al-Salaam Farag, which said: "…there is no doubt that the first battlefield for jihad is the extermination of these infidel leaders and to replace them by a complete Islamic Order…" Another Islamic Jihad group emerged in Palestine as an offshoot of the Egyptian group, and began militant activity against the state of Israel, and consistently opposed itself to the policies of the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Yasser Arafat. ===Wahhabism=== Another influential strain of Islamist thought came from the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabists, who emerged in the 18th century led by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, also believed that it was necessary to live according to the strict dictates of Islam, which they interpreted to mean living in the manner that the prophet Muhammad and his followers had lived in during the seventh century in Medina. Consequently they were opposed to many innovations developed since that time, including the minaret, marked graves, and later television and radios. The Wahhabis also considered those Muslims who violated their strict interpretation to be heretics, and thus used violence against other Muslims. When King Ibn Saud founded Saudi Arabia, he brought the Wahhabists into power with him. With Saud's rise to prominence, Wahhabism spread, especially following the 1973 oil embargo and the glut of oil wealth that resulted for Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabists were proselytizers, and made use of their wealth to spread their interpretation of Islam. == Modern Islamism == Islamism went through its major political and philosophical developments in the early part of the twentieth century, but it was not until the 1980s that it became active in an international arena and rose to great prominence in the 1990s. The reasons for the rise of Islamism during this period are still disputed. The ideologies that had dominated the Middle East since decolonization such as Ba'athism, Arab Socialism, and Arab Nationalism had, by 1980, failed to attain the economic and political goals expected of them. By late 1980s the distinct Shi'ite version of political Islam had been drained of its vigour in the Iran-Iraq War. During the conflict against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, many Islamists came together to fight what they saw as an atheist invading force and were heavily funded by the United States. In his book ''Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam'' Gilles Kepel argues that the central importance of Islamism in the 1990s was a product of the Gulf War. Prior to 1990 organized political Islam had been mostly associated with Saudi Arabia, a nation founded on Wahabism and an ally of Islamist groups in Egypt and in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia, as a close ally of the West and with a strong interest in regional stability, played an important restraining role on Islamist groups. The Shi'ite clerics in Iran had long argued that Saudi Arabia was an apostate state, a puppet of the West that espoused a corrupted Islam. During the 1980s these accusations had little effect, largely because of their Shi'ite origin. However, Kepel argues that when Saddam Hussein turned on his former allies, he embraced this rhetoric, arguing that Saudi Arabia had betrayed its duty to protect the holiest sites of Islam. Kepel states that Saddam Hussein embraced Islamic rhetoric and trappings and tried to draw leading scholars and activists to his camp. Some of the main Islamist groups remained loyal to Saudi Arabia, but a number such as parts of the Muslim Brotherhood and Afghani mujahideen aligned themselves with Saddam. Far more groups declared themselves neutral in the struggle. According to Kepel the rapid defeat of Saddam did not end this rift. As Saddam had likely predicted Saudi Arabia had found itself in a severe dilemma, the only way to counter the Iraqi threat was to seek help from the west, which would immediately confirm the Iraqi allegations of Saudi Arabia being a friend to the west. To ensure the regime's survival Saudi Arabia accepted a massive western presence in the country and de facto cooperation with Israel causing great offence to many in Islamist circles. After the war Saudi Arabia launched a two pronged strategy to restore its security and leadership in Islamist circles. Those Islamist groups who refused to return under the Saudi umbrella were persecuted and any Islamists who had criticized Saudi regime were arrested or forced into exile, with most going to London. At the same time Saudi oil money began to flow freely to those Islamist groups who continued to work with the kingdom. Islamist madrasas around the world saw their funding greatly increased. More covertly Saudi money began to fund more violent Islamist groups in areas such as Bosnia and the former Soviet Union. Saudi Arabia's western allies mostly looked the other way seeing the survival of their crucial ally as more important than the problem of more money and resources flowing to Islamist groups. In the 1990s Islamist conflicts erupted around the world in areas such as Algeria, the Palestinian territories, Sudan, and Nigeria. In 1995 a series of terrorist attacks were launched against France. The most important development was the rise to power of the Deobandi Taliban in Afghanistan in 1996. In the Taliban ruled Afghanistan a number of anti-Saudi and anti-Western Islamist groups found refuge. Significantly, Osama bin Laden, a Saudi influenced by Wahhabism and the writings of Sayed Qutb, joined forces with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad under Ayman al-Zawahiri to form what is now called al-Qaida. A considerable effort has been made to fight Western targets, especially the United States. The United States in particular is a subject of Islamist ire because of its support of Israel, its presence on Saudi Arabian soil, what Islamists regard as its aggression against Muslims in Iraq, and its support of the regimes Islamists oppose. In addition some Islamists have concentrated their activity against Israel, and nearly all Islamists view Israel with hostility. Osama bin Laden, at least, believes that this is of necessity due to historical conflict between Muslims and Jews, and considers there to be a Jewish/American alliance against Islam. There is some debate as to how influential Islamist movements remain. Some scholars assert that Islamism is a fringe movement that is dying, following the clear failures of Islamist regimes like the regime in Sudan, the Wahhabist Saudi regime and the Deobandi Taliban to improve the lot of Muslims. However, others (e.g. Ahmed Rashid) feel that the Islamists still command considerable support and cite the fact that Islamists in Pakistan and Egypt regularly poll 10 to 30 percent in electoral polls which many believe are rigged against them. An alternative direction has been taken by many Islamists in Turkey, where the Islamist movement split into reformist and traditionalist wings in 2001. The reformists formed the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party (Turkey), which gained an overall majority in the Turkish parliament in 2002, and has sought to balance Islamic values with the requirements of a secular and democratic political system. Some in the Justice and Development Party see the Christian Democrat parties of Western Europe as a model, which has led some to question whether it is a genuinely Islamist movement. == Islamist movements == * International — Al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden * Afghanistan — Taliban * Algeria — Armed Islamic Group, Islamic Salvation Front, Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat * Egypt — Gama'at Islamiya * Lebanon — Hizballah * Iraqi Kurdistan — Islamic Movement in Kurdistan * Palestinian territories — Hamas * Central Asia — Hizb ut-Tahrir * South Asia — Jamaat-e-Islami (there are Jamaats in India, Pakistan and Wahhabism) * Turkey — Justice and Development Party (Turkey), Felicity Party (Turkey) * Bahrain Al Wefaq Asalah ==See Also== * Islamist terrorism * Neofascism and religion#Islam * Jihad * Egyptian Islamic Jihad * Mujahedeen * Sayyid Qutb * Hasan al-Banna * Yusuf al-Qaradawi * Qur'an * Sharia * Hadith * Jamaat-e-Islami * Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi * Abdullah Yusuf Azzam * Sayed Ahmad Khan * Khurshid Ahmad * Bat Ye'or, a scholar of dhimmi peoples * Steven Emerson * Daniel Pipes * Dominionism ==External links== * [http://www.icapi.org International Coalition Against Political Islam] * [http://www.ntpi.org No to Political Islam] * [http://www.danielpipes.org/article/304 ''Is Islamism Dead?: The Future of Islamism in the Muslim World''] * [http://www.danielpipes.org/article/954 ''Distinguishing between Islam and Islamism''] * [http://www.danielpipes.org/article/79 ''Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias''] * [http://www.meforum.org/article/447 ''Is Islamism a Threat?''] - a panel discussion hosted by Middle East Quarterly, December 1999 * [http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0994/9409021.htm ''Evaluating the Islamist Movement''] - written by Greg Noakes, an American Muslim who works at the Washington Report * [http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0695/9506017.htm ''Muslim Scholars Face Down Fanaticism''] - written by Aicha Lemsine, an Algerian journalist and author. * [http://www.ibb.gov/ontheline/00968.htm ''Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Islam''] - a discussion of Islamism * [http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/monographs/Leiken_Bearers_of_Global_Jihad.pdf Bearers of Global Jihad: Immigration and National Security after 9/11] * [http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR3104 List of Islamist websites] as of July 16, 2004 * [http://jihadwatch.org/ Discussion and Opinion regarding Terrorism and Islamic Reform ] ==Further reading== * ''Onward Muslim Soldiers'', Robert Spencer, Regnery Publishing, 2003 * ''Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Islam for Jews'', Khalid Duran with Abdelwahab Hechiche, The American Jewish Committee and Ktav, 2001 * ''The Islamism Debate'', Martin Kramer, University Press, 1997 * ''Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook'', Charles Kurzman, Oxford University Press, 1998 * ''The Vanguard of the Islamic Revolution: The Jama'at-i Islami of Pakistan'', Vali Nasr, Univ. of California Press, 1994 * ''The Failure of Political Islam'', Olivier Roy, Harvard Univ. Press, 1994 * ''The Challenge of Fundamentalism: Political Islam and the New World Disorder'', Bassam Tibi, Univ. of California Press, 1998 Islam
Islamism
==Archives== Previous discussions on this article may be found here: *Talk:Islamism/Archive 1 *Talk:Islamism/Delete *Talk:Islamism/Archive 2 ==US Troops in Saudi Arabia == The US no longer has troops in Saudi Arabia. Islamists are angry about a presence the US once had in SA and that should be clarified. == Pascifist Islamists??? == ' Some Islamist groups advocate only a non-violent path to an Islamic system of government. ' ??? Welfare Party in Turkey springs to mind. Commitee for Defence of the Rights of the Saudi People is another. Many branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. That's off the top of my head. This article is littered with inaccuracies. Why is Islamism defined as conservative, for example? User: John Ball 22/07/04 9:50. :Can I see some documentation of this? Have you reviewed: ::I also want documentation for John Ball's interesting and unreferenced claims. User:RK ::: Well, the Welare Party is the current, elected, governing party in Turkey. User: John Ball ::::I've added a short para on the Justice and Development Party (Turkey) in this article. The Welfare Party have been defunct since 2000. The other party which emerged from their embers, the Felicity Party {Turkey) is much more conservative, although also has no truck with terrorism. Similarly for much of the religious opposition in Saudi, most of whom seem to be headquartered in the area of London I live in, although I know less there as an amateur Turkicist, not an Islamicist or an Arabist! ::::It does seem to me that RK and his doubters need to come to some sort of multiple POV consensus. You also probably need someone who actually is an Islamist here as well - surely putting out a call on Talk:Islam would bring some one in? I do not regard Daniel Pipes as an impartial source personally, but your mileage may, of course, vary. User:Gerry Lynch 14:08, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::::: Ah, yes. I forgot the morphing of Welfare into JDP. User: John Ball 27/07/04 16:35 **Islamist movements * International -- Al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden * Afghanistan -- Taliban * Algeria -- GIA , Islamic Salvation Front , GSPC * Egypt -- Gama'at Islamiya * Lebanon -- Hizballah * South Asia -- Jamaat-e-Islami (there are Jamaat's in India, Pakistan, Bengladesh, Sri Lanka, Indian-administered Kashmir, and Pakistan-administered Kashmir) * Southeast Asia -- Jemaah Islamiyah * Philippines -- Abu Sayyaf, Moro Islamic Liberation Front * West Bank and Gaza Strip - Hamas * Saudi Arabia -- Wahhabism Which of these is the non-violent one? User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 01:43, 29 May 2004 (UTC) ---- Fair criticism. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say something like "some Islamic thinkers advocate a non-violent..." See [http://www.tanzeem.org/resources/articles/article.asp?id=140] for example - there are plenty more - see this comprehensive reading list [http://members.tripod.com/nviusa/islam.htm] . But I think the confusion here stems from the fact that the definition of the term Islamist given on the page: "Islamism is an ideology which holds that Islam is not only a religion, but a system that also governs the politicial, economic and social imperatives of the state" is not the popular use definition of the term. Clearly the belief that Islam should be a governing system is one held by non-violent Muslims as well as violent ones, just as this is true of Christians and Marxists. Islamism, at is most basic form, is a claim about ends, violence is a choice of means. But as you say, the large and active Islamic groups in the world today all advocate armed struggle so perhaps the statement needs weakening. I think it's important to make clearly early that armed sturggle is not a necessary consequence of Islamism, though. Look at the page in more detail, Islam as a political movement has a solid introduction covering these points perhaps the addition should be "This article focuses on militant-Islamist groups, Some Islamists advocate only a nonviolent path to an Islamic system of government see Islam as a political movement for more discussion." Cheers Jamie User:Camipco 19:52, 29 May 2004 (UTC) ---- I understand your point, and agree that this is a matter of defining "Islamism" properly. The question to me is if ANY proper Islamist expouses non-violence, (I assume none do) and if you are correct when you say "armed sturggle is not a necessary consequence of Islamism" (I think perhaps you are not). We will need verification of course of these particulars. The link you supply (only the 2nd one worked for me) seem sufficient to show that some Muslims contemplate Pascifism, but do not display in my eyes an example of ''Islamist'' pascifism. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 21:43, 29 May 2004 (UTC) :Sam, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (the original Islamist movement, which serves as the inspiration for most Sunni Islamists) has for years espoused a philosophy of non-violent civil disobedience which has earned them the praise and support of a number of human rights groups in the face of repression by the Egyptian government. User:Graft 16:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) ::That is a distortion. The Muslimn brotherhood, an organization with many arms, has also been involved in promoting terrorism and murder. It has split into many groups, including al-Gama'a al-Islamiya (the Islamic Group). They worked with Islamic Jihad to assassinate Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadatin 1981. They only appear "peaceful" if you restrict yourself to those adherents who are peaceful, and ignore all those adherents who are not peaceful! But that is not intellectually honest; it gives us a distorted picutre of the movement as a whole. User:RK ::: Wrong again, RK, as you say al-Gama'a al-Islamiya is a split from the MB, ie: it is NOT the MB. User: John Ball 29/07/04 13:40. :::I've heard a lot of the same, that the Brotherhood is the ruling force behind Islamic Jihad and so on. I'm not sure what the truth is; their commitment to non-violence has always seemed more tactical than ideological and thus open to compromise. If someone could find some of their writing on the subject of non-violence that would be extremely useful. Unfortunately I have no books on the subject. User:Graft 13:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) ---- Good edit. The hard part is in distinguishing between muslims generally, and Islamists in particular. In my experience "Islamist" is largely a perjorative, similar to Fascism or Communism, and used to signify "bad muslim". In short I feel it is a label only used by the opposition, and thus quite tricky. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 01:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC) ==Definitions== The term "Islamism" is not a perjorative, and for that matter, neither is Fascism and certainly not Communism. Each of these terms have a specific meaning in academia. "Islamism" was not a term coined by opposition but scholars of political science and sociology who observed this phenomenon. In short, Islamists are those people believe that Islam is not only a religion but that it also has a specific social, economic and political agenda. Now, you can argue over whether Islamists are Muslims, but you can not say that these two terms refer to exactly the same concept. The supposed "founding fathers" of Islamism are generally recognized as being Syed Qutb of Egypt and Abul 'ala Maududi of India/Pakistan. Certainly, the ideas that these guys proposed were not representative of the entire Muslim spectrum, and expecially not of the ulema at the time. My point is that the term "muslim" refers to anyone who claims to be a follower of "Islam" in any interpretation. "Islamist" refers to someone following one specific interpretation of the religion. --User:Katangoori 15:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC) :The first sentance is particularly questionable, but we generally appear to agree on the facts, if not their interpretation. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 18:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC) ::Okay, yeah, maybe my first sentence is questionable. May be I should say instead that Islamism, Fascism, and Communism are sometimes used as perjoratives by sections of the lay public and media, however they each also have a specific academic meaning which is not in any way perjorative. My hope is that we use the academic meanings because as terms they are more useful to us in that they correspond to well recognized observations, theories, and models of how to interpret the social actions of each group. --User:Katangoori 15:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) :::I would argue that Islamism is unique amongst that list in being used exclusively by non-members. No Islamsist calls themselves one, unlike Communists, Fascists, etc.. who sometimes do call themselves by those names. Also the use of the term by academics in no way reduces the inherently negative and IMO pejorative connotations. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 15:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) ::::The fact that no Islamist calls themself "Islamist" does not mean that the term is inappropriate. Most racists probably would not accept the label either, but that does not mean that label is inappropriate, or perjorative. The identity itself may have negative connotations, but the -label- is not a slur. Compare to "pinko", which is definitely perjorative. User:Graft 16:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) :::::I didn't mean to suggest that the lable was innapropriate, but was rather exploring the usage and definition of the term. I would say that "racist" is definitely a perjorative, having more negativity attached to those it is used against than most racial slurs themselves these days (nigger is rapidly becomming a term of affection, for example). I don't intend to make a value judgement about Islamists nor those who lable them in this article, but rather to ensure that the definition we produce is congruous with that in general use, rather than being ideosyncratic or sanitized. IMO the term is used with the same meaning within the media, academia, and the general public. User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 21:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) ::::::Why not consider 'islamist' as a handy shorthand for 'islamic fundamentalist'? --User:Rudi Dierick 14:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) Because the latter is an even fuzzier term? And in the way they are usually used, less specific.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 21:09, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC) ==Merge?== Due to a past dispute, the related article Islam as a political movement was created as a copy of this one, which was allegedly being censored. Having parallel pages did not solve the dispute, but the articles have existed separately since that point. There is now an attempt to have the pages merged back together (specifically, to merge Islamism into Islam as a political movement). However, they both have undergone significant changes, and their content is markedly different. Furthermore, I think their titles reflect distinct subject matter: ''Islam as a political movement'' indicates an article about the religion of Islam as a political force throughout its history; ''Islamism'' should be an article about a specific political movement that developed in the 20th century among certain elements within Islam. The first article is broader, and deals with a subject that will continue to evolve as long as Islam itself exists. The second article has a more narrow focus, and deals with a phenomenon whose future is less certain - it may grow, shrink, or even die. Since I find a valuable purpose in having both pages, I definitely oppose merging them at this point. Naturally, both pages should link to each other, and the specific phenomenon of Islamism should be discussed, though more briefly, in Islam as a political movement. It is possible that some of the content currently on one page might be more appropriately relocated to the other. If people have other concerns with the content of either page, they should feel free to raise them, but I don't think merging these pages is the solution. --User:Michael Snow 21:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) == recently addede and deleted material == Confirmed. The recently added material was written by the banned user, EntmootsOfTrolls. It was a serious of off-topic meanderings denying that Islamism really existed, attacking the west and Christianity, and a denial that Islamic societies really are Islamic. I have thus removed much of this material. User:RK 12:36, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC) Graft, it is a violation of NPOV policy to remove views and statements that you personally disagree with. If you have better stats, please show them. But the Muslim expert quotes is far more knowledgeable on the subject than you or I. You can't delete his estimates based entirely on your ad homenim attack. User:RK 00:11, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC) Graft writes "RK, you can't add whatever crap you want to this article simply because it supports your thesis that America is teeming with Islamist radicals." :Readers should be aware that I never said any such thing, and neither did any of the sources I quoted. User:RK 20:14, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC) :RK, you can't add whatever crap you want to this article simply because it supports your thesis that America is teeming with Islamist radicals. For example, Steve Emerson was exposed as a fraudulent schmuck. See [http://www.counterpunch.org/emerson05192003.html this article] for a description of the newspaper that caught him in the act. Besides that, common sense should tell you that 100,000 is an enormous number, and if there really were this many "hard-core" Islamic fundamentalists (which is about 2% of the Muslim population of the US), there would have been dozens of terrorist incidents in the US by now. Please remove the Steve Emerson junk yourself, and the Kabbani quote (since he does NOT justify his numbers, it is simply speculation - there is no call to quote speculation as authoritative) and in the future be more careful about the sources you quote. User:Graft 05:14, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::Sorry, but Steve Emerson is universally acknowledged as an expert on this issue. Wikipedia NPOV policy demands that we include points of view, even if we happen to find one author that disagrees with this POV. User:RK 20:12, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC) :::Did you even read the article I linked to? Steve Emerson is a lying fraudster. Read [http://groups.google.com/groups?q=steve-emerson&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=393BA5B8.BB043014%40eastky.net&rnum=20] and [http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/03/05/emerson/index.html] for even more. Do you suggest we also go around quoting David Irving authoritatively on the Holocaust, because NPOV policy demands that we include points of view? User:Graft 20:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::::Yes, I did read this out of context smear job. It is a an attack by someone with an agenda. It represents the point of view of a small group of people who have anger towards people write about radical Islam. However, the fact remains that Steve Emerson is an established authority on this subject, and his views are accepted as such by many mainstream historians, as well as by moderate Muslims. Your comparison of him to a holocaust denier is out of of bounds, and false on its face. Again, you fail to understand that just because you and a handful of others do not lile this man, does not mean that everyone else does. User:RK :::::Steve Emerson's prominent witch-hunt of Sami al-Arian was also carefully dissected by a number of major papers, including the Miami Herald, and found to be totally without basis, an utter fabrication. Emerson has refused to admit this, and insists that everyone else is wrong (including the FBI, INS, and all the papers that said he was wrong). The fact that Bill O'Reilly has him on the Factor does not make him an established authority, nor does the fact that he received a measure of attention following 9/11. Many mainstream figures have noted that this man is a liar and spreads false stories. User:Graft 00:49, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) :As to the hartford Seminary study, it's available [http://www.cair-net.org/mosquereport/Masjid_Study_Project_2000_Report.pdf here (pdf)]. Your text is hardly appropriate. The study says that only 21% (one in five, not one in three) of mosques teach a literal interpretation of Islam, rather than leaving questions open to modern interpretation (70%). This would be analagous to Orthodox and Reformed Judaism, and certainly does NOT mean that these mosques are Islamist. Your two-thirds contention is simply wrong - the study does not at all suggest that mosques preach that America is moral. It doesn't even ask that question. It asks about the personal beliefs of the mosque representatives surveyed. I'd bet a good percentage of Christians in this community think this country is immoral under the rule of liberal elites and homosexuals. In any event, this STILL doesn't make you an Islamist. So, I'm not sure what the point of your highly-misleading text is. User:Graft 05:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) Here's the text: ''A study by the Hartford Seminary showed that one third of mosques in the USA preach a fundamentalist form of Islam, while two thirds of the leaders of American mosques preach that America is immoral.'' You'll note it reads "1/3", not "1/5". Also, the relevance of this study to Islamism is unclear. Even assuming that 1/5 of mosques teach a literal interpretation of the Quran, this does NOT make them Islamist - there's much more to being Islamist than that, agreed? Furthermore, the study does NOT say that 2/3 of leaders "preach" anything - it only inquires about their personal belief. Would you care to defend this text, or shall I simply remove it again? User:Graft 20:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::Again, you are still attacking beliefs I do not have. You still are suffering from the misimpression that someone is trying to prove that most American Muslims are fanatics. I think that the real problem is that there is no one good reference for the extent of Islamism in America or across the world. As such, in accord with our NPOV policy, I am offering a number of estimates from totally unrelated sources. If you know of better estimates, please add them as well! But we shouldn't remove any estimate related to this phenomenon, and then add a strawman reference to Daniel Pipes. This has nothing to do with him. Let us look for as many sources on estimates as possible; info from newer surveys would be of special interest. User:RK 21:36, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC) :::You win! (No, I am not being sarcastic.) Graft, I am removing a section of the material based on your discussions in the Talk page. Also, I added two more sentences in another section to provide more context. This should clarify that these estimates do not imply that most Muslims are not Islamists or terrorists. And I am still open to other sources you would like to bring! User:RK 02:17, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC) ::::Steve Emerson still remains in the text, now with no sort of descriptor at all. I'd be interested to hear what other's opinions are on maintaining his quote. User:Graft 16:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::::Steve Emerson is not a commentator in good standing. Everyone knows he is a political activist, even the people who believe his claims. --User:Zero0000 23:52, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Causes of anti-western sentiment== I'm taking exception to the last clause of the second paragraph, but I don't want to change it without some discussion. It currently reads: ''gaining much ground through appropriating anti-Western sentiment which has emerged due to the occupation of the Palestinian-populated West Bank by Israel.'' Now I will not dispute that the Israeli control of the West Bank/Gaza is one continuing cause of anti-Western sentiment throughout the Arab world; but there are certainly others -- the CIA led overthrow of Iran's government in the early 1950's, to name one example. I'd suggest striking the whole implied causal link, and changing anti-Western to anti-Western/colonialist. Given the past volatility of this page, though, can I get some consensus first? :However, Israeli occupation is continually cited by Islamists and their sympathizers as one of the most egregious sins of the West; the CIA overthrow of Mossadegh, by contrast, might be said to have been redeemed by the Islamic Revolution in 1979. I think the emphasis on Israel/Palestine is appropriate since it is given such prominence by Islamists, and in general arouses a huge amount of sympathy in the Arab world, something Westerners may not appreciate. User:Graft 03:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Emphasis I don't mind, it's the allegation of causality I object to. User:Mdwyld 04:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I agree with Mdwyld. The way it's written suggests that "anti-western sentiment" never existed until 1967. User:Corvus 06:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Recent deletions regarding Wahhabism == Hello Hadj, Just curious why you removed some things - for example, that al-Wahhab saw those who did not follow his philosophy as non-Muslims (e.g., if you visited the grave of some Sufi saint, you were not a Muslim) and made use of violence against non-Muslims. Do you dispute that this is true? User:Graft 15:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) :I'm not discussing if it happend or not; I'm discussing the teachings of Salafis and Wahhabism and what they are telling us. But according to what I've read till know on Salafism/Wahhabism there is no actual violence against deviated Islam groups. Instead of a violent Jihad against these people they initiated a Jihad with their tongue. As I may quote from the famous Saudi scholar, Sheikh Munajidd:"It is well known that jihad against the hypocrites is not like jihad against the kuffaar, because jihad against the hypocrites is fought with knowledge and argument, whilst jihad against the kuffaar is fought with swords and arrows. " :So till now I have no indication to support your statement User:Hadj 20:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::Since there may be many things of which we are ignorant, in general it's not good practice to go and remove those things that are outside our scope of knowledge. In this case, it's pretty easy to ascertain that al-Wahhab in fact initiated several violent conflicts and fought many battles against other Muslims, most notably the Ottoman Turks. User:Graft 00:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) If you have any proof to back this up and have the source(s) telling that the religious sources of the Wahhabies force them to use violence against other Muslims I would happily to see that being written with the sources. User:Hadj 09:06, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Unclear words = unclear info == I have made some minor/major changes to the wording of the second paragraph as I feel it offers a confusing explanation with words hinting at things but not making them clear. I have tried to make this opening paragraph simply expositional rather then having views. I have removed 'Nationalism, Communism, Fascism, etc.' as, despite the word against in the next sentence, it suggests they are components of Islamist thought. The words 'deals with' emphasises this as Islamism probably deals with liberalism and capitalism as well. I have also changed the word 'appropriating' as this suggests they borrowed it off of someone else which makes you want to ask who. Although 'adopting' could be accused of that it does not, I don't think, presuppose a political continuity that is not properly explained. I have no problem if you wish to clearly say that it is based on a particular ideology but hinting at links just gives it a distorted, confused feel. User:MeltBanana 21:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Minor edits == :''Copied from User talk:Graft and User talk:iFaqeer Hi I! Nice edit on Islamism, but just a note: usually, the minor edit tag is reserved for edits that do not substantially affect meaning, e.g. typos or insertion of conjunctions, etc. Thus, even the addition of a single word may not necessarily be a 'minor edit', depending on what the word is. This is a useful convention to follow since some people keep minor edits hidden, and it would be rude to slip contentious changes in meaning past their notice. (Perhaps your flag was merely an error - in which case I apologize for my presumption). Anyway, have a nice day! User:Graft 16:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) :You're right about the error. I have set my preferences to have the "This is a minor edit" flag to be "on" by default, so the wikification, grammar, and text edits that I am more often making (for subjects related to South Asia, Pakistan, Islam, etc.) aren't flagged as major changes. The problem is that I had stopped paying attention that flag. And now that you have mentioned it, I have recently created whole new articles (in fact, half of the entries at :Category:Chiefs of Army Staff, Pakistan) with that flag set. Thanks for the reminder. I did not intend to slip anything by anyone. I fully realize that the changes at the top of Islamism are pretty fundamental, and didn't mean to imply otherwise.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 23:23, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC) == Some help on Template talk:Timeline of Islamist militancy! == According to Pename, he checked the Oxford English Dictionary from Oxford University Press and it says that Islamism is as follows: Islamism / 'zlmz()m/, / 's-/ → n. Islamic militancy or fundamentalism. - DERIVATIVES Islamist ( also Islamicist ) n. & adj. SOURCE: "Islamism n." The Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
I
IA | IB | IC | ID | IE | IF | IG | IH | IJ | IK | IL | IM | IN | IO | IP | IR | IS | IT | IU | IW | IX | IY | IZ |Words begining with Islamism:
Islamism
Islamism
Islamism/Archive_1
Islamism/Archive_2
Islamism/Delete
Islamisme
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
