Talk:Islamism/Archive 1

I don't know nearly enough about contemporary Islam to mess with this, and the web is a dangerous place to start. I will offer below the reference to the Encyclopedia of the Orient, which was very useful for culture terms when I taught Islamic Art & Architecture last year. The term is certainly in use among Muslims of my acquaintance in America and in Jordan, though all those people are western-educated and definitely opposed to the politics they identify as Islamist, so it's not NPOV testimony. (one problem with the term - it was a common 19th century synonym meaning merely "Muslim" by analogy to "Protestantism," while the current usage is more by analogy to "Liberalism" or "Marxism.") --MichaelTinkler

http://lexicorient.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct-frame.pl?http://i-cias.com/e.o/islamism.htm

Agreed, as it stands, this article claims there is only one kind of political Islam, and that's radical fundamentalist militant Islam. But in fact all of islam has a political character, by definition. And there is a big difference between a 'fundamentalist' who believes in something, a 'radical' who seeks deep change in core institutions, and a 'militant' who picks up a gun... to defend his way of life. And all of those are quite different from a terrorist who goes to attack someone else's way of life (whether he thinks he's defending his own or not, which he may be).

So, this article is biased slanted crap, and the clock is ticking starting now. Anyone who wants to understand the actual political history of Islam in ten minutes is well advised to read haram, hima, isnah, early Muslim philosophy, ulema, tarika and Islamization of knowledge. Then come back here and say that all fundamentalists are radical, that all radicals are militants, or that all militants are terrorists.

A good source is G. E. Jansen's "Militant Islam", Pan Books, 1979, a British work that basically describes militant Islam as the traditional defender of Islamic values against the values-free colonizing West, and the most likely hope to democratize Muslim nations. And yes he wrote after the Iranian revolution, about its early successes and failures.

There is indeed a 'radical Islamist' but that term must rightly include such as Al-Faruqi adn his Islamization of knowledge. It's like saying Pope John Paul II is a 'radical Catholic', which he most certainly is - as much so as the opposing radicals (liberation theologians, etc.) he purged from the Church. Radical is about thought, militant is about action, and 'terrorist' is about a specific type of action somewhere other than 'home'.

-

There were a lot of recent additions to this article which were incorrect, out of place, as well as being violations of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This article is not the correct place to discuss at length Noam Chomsky's conspiracy theories about how Westeners lie about Arabs. Further, there were some totally false claims made, such as "Western historians believe ..X" as a way to discredit this article. The implication was that their claims were biased, and that Arabs have a different point of view. But this is wrong. Arab historians themselves say the same thing. Further, an odd claim was made about the nation of Iraq, claiming that it proved the so-called "western" ideas were wrong, since it has created a stable Muslim secular state. How could anyone even remotely knowledgeable about Iraq could write such a thing? The facts are quite the opposite: Iraq is well-known to both Arab and Western scholars as an extremely unstable state, and that there is a large Muslim Islamist sub-culture that wants to actively overthrow Hussein's secular regime. RK

Many Arab political leaders have gone public with their fears of this scenario, and have said that this is one of the reasons that they are against the possible new US war against Iraq. Arabs believe that such a war is likely to release pent-up Islamism, which could have a ripple effect through Iraq, and perhaps Egypt and Jordan. I find it odd to ignore these crucial facts, and misleading to claim that these Arab views are really "western views". That's anti-Western propaganda, and does not belong here. RK

Still no mention of roles of ulema and tarika. You can't talk about such modern groups as the Muslim Brothers without mentioning their historical precedents. The present article is hopelessly mired in the current generation of analysts, who believe that history began in 1979, and that this hasn't been going on for over a millenium.


 * That is simply not true. In fact, you are being rude and insulting. Perhaps you think that insulting the views of moderate Arab and Western historians and professors of religion will gain you points amongst your peers, but it does not impress us.


 * You clearly know nothing about the topic. Thus, no point debating you.  Read the articles on tarika and ulema and then say with a straight face that secret societies resisting Christian colonization are not part of Islam for over 1000 years.  Clearly, they are, and that's just an historical fact, not an opinion.  The article does not reflect this reality at all.


 * I am sorry, but you clearly have misunderstood me. I am not disagreeing with what you write in the above paragraph. If this is what you had been trying to refer to in your previous statements, you didn't make that clear. I don't have any problem with you adding information to this article on this fascinating topic. Just please don't attack me as someone who knows nothing about the topic; I do. The problem is that you initially were very vague in what you were writing about, and you kept mistakenly thinking that I was trying to refute specific points you had in mind. But that is not; in fact up until this moment I had no idea what specifically you wanted this article to mention. So I am in agreement with you on this issue. RK

Even the term "Islamism" is just stupid, because it implies there is some way to separate Islam from its 'ism'. Historically, there's no basis for that at all. It is wishful thinking. Right up through the 1980s, the term "Militant Islam" was applied, and that's still the correct term to apply to it today.


 * I find your comments polemical, ignorant, and uninformed. For example, you are using a crude form of wordplay to "prove" that the word Islamism has no meaning. Sorry, but no dice. Even in the Arab world the terms Islamism and Islamist are well-accepted. You can't expect the rest of the world to rewrite their dictionary to match your desires. RK


 * Of course the terms are 'well-accepted', as they propagate the idea that Islam can become non-political like some breeds of Christianity (although that too was wholly political in its early days). The term is legitimate if and only if one accepts that the division of politics and religion can be made.  And, the majority of Islam, does not accept such divisions.  The article just doesn't say that, and it must.  It is you and your fellow academic dreamers who are rewriting the dictionary to match your desires - and fool Bush perhaps.


 * Huh? What are you talking about? On this point I totally agree with you; this point should be in the article. Whoever said otherwise? I don't understand why you are criticising something I never said. Don't get me wrong, I am glad we agree on this point! I just don't get why you thought I believed differently on this topic. RK

I am reverting the recent vandalism to this article. I understand that some people here on Wikipedia are extremely anti-Western and pro-Arab, but that does not give anyone the right to insert bald-faced lies into any entry, for any reason. For example, the claims I deleted about Iraq are recognized as fiction by both Arab and Western scholars. I want to be very clear about this: The view that Stevert has added is not pro-Arab, nor does it add information. Rather, he is saying things that are indisputable false, and in a way that is extremely anti-Arab. Stevert keeps lying, by falsely claiming that only "Western" scholars have certain views about the origin of Islam. As Arab historians themselves have written, that is false. I find Stevert's attacks against moderate Arab scholars, as well as all Western scholars, grossly offensive. RK

Further, he keeps filling this entry will straw-man arguments; he takes arguments that practically no believes, dishonestly claims that they are mainstream Western views, and then attacks these views which aren't really held by reasonable people to begin with. Finally, this is supposed to be an article about the Islamist movement, aka Islamism. Sadly, this article keeps getting filled with the personal theories of an extreme anti-Western linguist (who does not research in this area at all!) RK

Guys, this page is 'not supposed to be about Noam Chomsky's pet theories. Stop filling this article with this views of this one man, who is (by the way) widely considered an extremist. He also is a linguist and a specialist in grammar and the development of langauges. He is not an middle-east expert. (He just talks about the subject a lot, like many of us. That does not make him an expert, no matter how many articles he writes in defense of Islamic radicalism, and how many articles he writes attacking the USA.) The argument from authoritity is never valid to begin with, but it is even more ridiculous when it is used from someone who is not an authority in the field at all! RK

The point is "RK" this article is only here as a vulgar term, ( ethnically- derisive - in fact) Im not going to accuse you of watching too much Fox News Network, but I will say your calling Chomsky's perspective on this as "lies" and "vandalism" strikes me as odd. Perhaps evidence of your ethnocentrism, though I wouldnt actually think such a thing... (SV)

Islamism, as many will point out, is nothing so much as a variant on varous other similar vulgar expressions: "radical Islam", similar to "Arab nationalism" similar to "arab extremism". Does anyone ever say "radical Judiasm?" Ive seen it, why isnt there a name for it? the point is its a biased euphemism, and although, Im sure you RK know the ins and outs of the euphemism, you forget the bias part, and that the bias within the euphemism bears revealing in an en-circle-o-pedic article. (SV)


 * Stop writing these bizarre untruths. There is such a name for radical forms of Judaism, and in fact there are Wikipedia entries on it. Check out the Wikipedia entries on Gush Emunim, the fundamentlist Jewish settlers group, and on Ultra-Orthodox Judaism. Further, there are also names for similar radical forms of Hinduism and Christianity, and these also have begun to be discussed on Wikipedia. Your hysterical denial of the truth indicates that you don't want to discuss any of these subjects; you merely want to write apologetics for the Islamist movement. RK

Chomsky, a Jewish American like yourself, RK, gets credit worldwide ( outside of the US ) for being one of the few original and clear thinkers, in the world, let alone the Jewish-American community. To paraphrase something he said about Adam Smith, "You're supposed to worship Chomsky, though your not supposed to actually read him." (SV)


 * This is an egregiously bad example of the "Argument from authority". Chomsky is not an expert in this field. He is a linguist and researcher on the origins of grammar and syntax in humans. Further, this article is not about him, and I will not allow you to vandalize this article with your Chomsky worship. RK

If you do care to actually read the work of one of the worlds clearest thinkers, youll find a damning array of thoughful, considerate descriptions of current world affairs, and done in a context which rings of truth (see Jesus ), not to mention relevance, meaning, and substance. The only thing I regret in quoting Chomsky for this article is overlooking Edward Said, and Howard Zinn.-Stevert


 * Interesting that you define truth as Jesus. Is this an attack on me because I am not a Christian? Go away, troll. We shall not let you vandalize this article. RK


 * Who is "we" in this context? ;-)
 * More seriously, I can understand a desire for a different name - on a personal level I knew about "radical Islam" aka "fundamentalist Islam", but I'd not come across "Islamism" before. So, naturally, I worshipped the great God Google and it quoth:
 * Islamism => 24,800
 * Islamist => 122,000
 * radical Islam => 24,700
 * radical Muslim => 11,300
 * fundamentalist Islam => 7,980
 * fundamentalist Muslim => 6,080
 * militant Islam => 29,300
 * militant Muslim => 6,430
 * Seems like Islamist/Islamism is the most common then, so it seems reasonable to use that as a title. The content of this article is a seperate question, of course... Martin

--- RK, your (perhaps) too malciously keen to call me a "troll", but ill defer to Hanlon's Law on that subject.

Peace breaks out: Alright RK, what do you want for this article to include some NPOV? Huh? Maybe some reference to anti-Semitism on the Islam page? What do you want, RK out of this article? What is your invested interest in this article? Your not qualified to write it, you admit that yourself in your Hanlonesque terms, that, what do you want? Ill give you an example of how you overlook bias:


 * Impartial readers can see for themselves what a hysterical liar that Stevertigo is. You see, I never said any such things. He forges quotes, and then replies to these forged quotes. Worse, he expects other people not to notice. Well, guess what? We do notice.  Continued violation of WIkipedia protocol may lead to Stevertigo being banned.

The article stated "Many political analysts have characterized Islamism as a symptom of a demographic timebomb in the Middle East in which the population is growing rapidly, but without a correspondingly large growth in the economy."


 * Is this NPOV? It reminds me of the notion of attempting to sweep under the rug the IPF famine debate as being based on insinuations of over-reproduction.

Clearly theres far more to it. 50 years of denegration of human standards, a theft of culture, political power, etc.... say what you like in your attempt to gather Ameri-cantric support, the bias is revealed in the ill weight given to stoic "facts".


 * I don't understand. What precisely do you hold is not NPOV about this? You really are not being clear. And again, this is also a mainstream view held by Arab historians and sociologists. Why do keep lying about Arab scholars, and claiming that they are all "American-centric"? That is really bizarre. RK

As far as demographic timebombs, from what I understand of agriculture, even the USA, the "greatest, most prosperous country in the world" is a demographic timebomb as well. ( Crop yields per acre diminishing / food consumption per capita rising ) In other words, were not in disagreement : the whole world is a demographic timebomb and nobody is to be blamed (including violent, radical islamists or nationalists, and people like yourself ) for acting out in ways that are human, ( rage, defensiveness..) This works at all levels, including the level of discourse like this one, so your defensiveness, in how islamism is portrayed is understandable, though it must be pointed out, without prejudice, that your interests are not Islamic, therefore youre defensiveness takes offensive form.

And btw... My reference to Jesus; was not to your degree of belief, but to the central element of the Christ mythos; standing up to the wicked and the invested within his own community, and speaking the truth, regardless of where it would lead him: Heroism for sake of principle, in other words. The human culture would be stuck back in the middle ages if it wasnt for such spiritual leaps. There are more leaps to come, get use to it, young man. -Stevert


 * "This is an egregiously stupid example of the "Argument from authority". Chomsky is not an expert in this field. He is a linguist and researcher on the origins of grammar and syntax in humans. Further, this article is not about him, and I will not allow you to vandalize this article with your Chomsky worship."

p.s.: hehe I see. So... According to you, one cannot be an authority without a pedigree... lord, what a puppet you are. You also reveal your utter ignorace of linguistics, and the professor's revolutionary work on the subject; Words arentjust "grammar and syntax" - as you so ebulliently point out - that's was his point. Looks like you might got some schoolin' t'do. -sv


 * Uh, SV? You misspelled "diploma". Dogs have pedigrees. Academics have diplomas, and peer-reviewed research. Chomsky's views, outside of his professional field, are not well-accepted by anyone except radicals, anarchists, Marxists, and anti-Semites. Does that prove he is wrong? No. But it doesn't prove he is right, either. Does that prove he is an anti-Semite? No, but it sure doesn't help him look good, either.  RK


 * You can quote all the linguistics, grammar and Scandanavian art professors you like. But none of them are authorities in the field. Also, for the purpose of NPOV we need to focus on mainstream scholars, and not use only the most radical anti-Western ones. Can the views of non-mainstream voices find a place here in Wikipedia? While this may surprise you, I say "Yes", and I would happilly agree with you that this entry, and others, might benefit from this. But the views in this article should start with a synopsis of mainstream views. If there exists a respected minority view of real scholars, and not just anti-Western cranks, then such alternative discussions of this topic should well be presented.  But the material you wanted to add had actual errors in it; the most egrgious of which was a serious of straw-man arguments, in which Chomsky is attacking a view that no serious scholar holds! Further, the claims made about Iraq were silly, and didn't describe the real nation of Iraq that one finds in the real world. They were just made up claims. RK

But, truth be known, I'd rather quote you, RK...
 * "Also, for the purpose of NPOV we need to focus on mainstream scholars,"


 * "If there exists a respected minority view of real scholars, and not just anti-Western cranks, then such alternative discussions of this topic should well be presented."


 * "Chomsky is attacking a view that no serious scholar holds!"

Wow. I thought he took upon himself to point out where the rubber meets the road. And how mainstream scholars, well fed and pampered by the pentagon, are reluctant if not timid to say things of any critical nature, about how the west was won. You still lack schooling, but then as Mark Twain said once :"I never let my schooling interfere with my education." But Twain was a crackpot too, right? Let me quote someone who is universally accepted by most, as being 'not a "crackpot"' : Yeshua, M'Sheekha: "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."


 * No, you miss the point. As far as the specific examples go, Chomsky is apparently lying. He is attacking views that no mainstream scholars hold. This is called "straw-man" tactics. Stevertigo, you just can't mak up quotes, and then attack people for things they never said. That is called vandalism, and it is not allowed on Wikipedia entries. -RK, (cutting in)

"Further, the claims made about Iraq were silly, and didn't describe the real nation of Iraq that one finds in the real world. They were just made up claims.

"Ill let this one go, as a freebie. Im not your schoolteacher. But the fun never stops. With you, does it..with respect for your future ability to discern horseshit, Stevert"


 * Um, this only proves that Stevertigo cannot back up his claims (no surprise) that he descends to harassment as well as forgery. Case closed. RK

Un, yes, Rk... please refrain from editing my comments... Just put your trite, little insignificant attempts at retorting what whatever is written - down at the bottom like all good, respectful ( and therefore respectable ) folk do. That way i dont have to go in and sort out your peckles from my dreckles, when you pollute the page like you tend to. Thanks a bunch. --Stevert

An RK classic, revisited: NOW WITH LINKS!
 * "Uh, SV? You misspelled "diploma". Dogs have pedigrees. Academics have diplomas, and peer-reviewed research. Chomsky's views, outside of his professional field, are not well-accepted by anyone except radicals, anarchists, Marxists, and anti-Semites."


 * Another classic by RK: "I agree with the Seer of Lublin, who wisely observed, "I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous" - this explains alot doesnt it? -Stevert

I have added a redirect from Muslim fundamentalism but I am noit sure if this is fair. Would "Muslim fundamentalism" perhaps refer to literal belief in the Qur'an and "Islamism" refer to political and acivist views?

Perhaps a Muslim wikipedian should decide and ammend if required. -- Chris Q 13:23 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * Islamism is a sub-set of Muslim fundamentalism. The Islamist movement is a militant social and political form of fundamentalist Muslim belief. However, there historically have been plenty of Muslim fundamentalists that were non-violent. There still are. I would keep these articles separate, and link them together as necessary. RK


 * Have done - though Muslim fundamentalism is really only a stup at present.


 * Many historians, both Arab and Western, hold that one of the roots of Islamism are the consequence of an inability of governments to rule Arab countries, under secular rule, also known as Arab nationalism, or Pan-Arabism. Of course, many other factors are involved as well. There are a few secular Muslim nations (e.g. Turkey, Egypt, and Iraq) who have managed to maintain stable secular governments, despite a vocal Islamic population. The case of Iraq, in particular, is of interest because there is a strong Islamist sub-culture intent on overthrowing Saddam Hussein's secular government, and replacing it with a state ruled by Islamic law.

What does the first sentence even mean? Why are arab nationalism and pan-arabism particularly associated with the "inability of governments to rule"? Which historians? What is a secular Muslim nation (do we mean secular Muslim government)? In what way is Turkey's government (about four coups in forty years) stable? In a paragraph on the roots of Islamism, do the last two paragraphs imply that the lack of Islamist governments cause Islamism!? DanKeshet 16:36 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * The core supporters of these groups tend to be people in the middle classes who have become frustrated with the corruption, inefficiency, and Western subserviency of the governments currently in power in the Middle East. Many political analysts have characterized Islamism as a symptom of a demographic timebomb'' in the Middle East in which the

population is growing rapidly, but without a correspondingly large growth in the economy.''

I don't doubt that these theories exist, but they need citations, especially if we're going to use specific terminology ("demographic timebomb"). DanKeshet 22:52 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think that the first half of this paragraph should be restored; the second half (about demography) should be deleted. RK


 * OK, but I think it would be good to find example citations for this theory. (Hell, I can find citations from Chomsky.)  DanKeshet


 * However, the strength of Islamism should not be overestimated.

This is a prescriptive sentence, and meaningless in an encyclopedia article, where we don't assume the reader has "estimated" the strength of Islamism at all.


 * What it probably should read is something "Islamism is not as common as some people believe; i.e. not all Muslims have become Islamists. Not even most Muslims have become Islamists. Islamism is practiced by a sizeable and growing minority of the Islamic world." RK


 * I'd be more comfortable using phrases like "sizeable minority" if there was some polling information we could use. If that's not available, don't Islamist political parties exist? How many votes do they normally get? Martin


 * been unable to offer improved government over the regimes that they have replaced

This is an opinion, and doesn't belong here.


 * Due to the predominance of the Islamist movement, Islam in the last 30 years has become increasingly intolerant of any disagreement or criticism. A recent feature of worldwide Islam is the tendency to issue public death threats against Muslims who disagree with the religion, ask to modernize the Qur'an, or write a book about leaving Islam. The death threats are not the province of a small number of fanatic clerics; in most of the cases cited below there have been public demonstrations by thousands of people in many nations, even in Arabs in Western nations such as England, burning the "heretics" in effigy and calling for their death. Moderates in the Arab community are not empowered to overturn the fatwas (religious edicts) calling for such death sentences. For examples of some of these death sentences, see Fatwa. 

It is meaningless to say "Islam" has become "increasingly intolerant"; in the next sentence, we make it a little more clear what we mean, though not much. We talk about "moderates" in the Arab community without even giving an axis we can measure moderation against. We talk about "cases cited below", but it's not at all clear to me what these cases are. DanKeshet 22:52 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * The cases cited were moved to the article on Fatwa. I strongly believe that this paragraph should be improved to take into account all of your concerns, and then brought back into the main article. This is an especially important point, because it explains why there has been so little resistance to the Islamist movement. (Few people wish to become pariahs in their own community, much less risk getting killed.) RK


 * I figured something like that had happened. I hope that the people who were working on this article can clean it up into something without obvious oddities (like citing things that aren't on the page) so that the rest of us can reevalutate it. DanKeshet


 * In the Islamic World itself, it is the only one of these modern trends to achieve prominence as a major political movement.

I took this bit out, since I think it's misdirection. The idea that Islam should be brought into the political sphere -is- Islamist, and so by definition it's going to be the only such trend to do so. Graft

Please note that their now appears to be an edit war going on. Some anonymous person is censoring this article, and making up total falsehoods. The word "Islamism", as all historians and scholars of Islam know, is a neutral term; it is even used by a huge number of Muslims themselves; they also use the term "Islamist movement". In fact, millions of Muslims across the world are quite unhappy with the Islamist movement, as they feel it distorts Islam. These terms have been used by many years, and they are used by European, Muslim and American scholars of religion and history. However, this anonymous person is censoring material in this article, and making up total falsehoods. They dishonestly claim that this term didn't exist before the "War on Terrorism", and that it was invented by the Israelis and the Americans to attack Islam. I am not sure who he is (although I have my suspicions); he is already making ad homenim attacks on me. This person has already tried to cemsor this article a few days ago, and he was prevented. Sadly, he is back, and it is clear he is not above making stuff up to push his pro-pseudo-Muslim, and his anti-American and anti-Jewish agenda. We need to be very careful with this person, and watch their edits very carefully. RK 00:04, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)