A question was recently raised in another thread, about the nature and definition of radical Islamism. I described Linda Sarsour as a radical Islamist, and that led to a comment about the way we, as Americans, view the meaning of radical Islamism.
I’ve been doing a lot of reading on the subject recently, so I thought I’d open this thread up for a discussion of the concept of Islamism and how specifically, it differs from Islam as a religion. Hopefully by helping to define the difference between the two, we’re better prepared as a group to discuss the actions of Islamists, so as not to confuse them with the religious beliefs of practicing Muslims.
The following is my attempt to explain how I’ve come to understand the definition of an Islamist, and how it differs to Islam as a religion. And yes, there is a difference. (Bear with me, as I tried to be thorough and provide relevant links, so this post is pretty long.)
First, it’s critically important to understand that Islamists take a fundamentalist view of societal standards and Islamic law, while viewing Islam through a political, not religious lens. That means Islamism is a political ideology first and foremost. It is not born out of religion, but in fact uses religious tenants to try and build support for a political movement.
In his book, “Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism,” Majeed Nawaz sums up this concept nicely.
A little background:
Majeed Nawaz is a Muslim of Pakistani decent and a second-generation British citizen. He was recruited to an Islamist organization called Hizb ut-Tahir (HT) as a teenager in England. He would go on to become one of the most successful recruiters and spokesmen for HT, helping to establish satellite groups across England, Denmark, Pakistan, and Egypt.
Ultimately it was recruitment efforts in Egypt in the early 2000s that led to Nawaz’s arrest and four-year prison term. HT was a banned organization in Egypt due to a failed coup against Anwar Sadat in the 1970s. Eventually another militant Islamist group, Tanzim al-Jihad, was able to recruit a core group of Egyptian military members that assassinated Sadat in 1981. Tanzim al-Jihad went on to split into two factions, including the more violent and extreme, Jihad al Islami, led by Ayman al Zawahiri. Zawahiri later merged his group with Bin Laden to form al-Qaeda.
While Islamist groups aren’t inherently violent, and they don’t always employ violent tactics, they do often align ideologically with many tenants of Jihadi Islamist groups. One of the ultimate goals of Islamists is the establishment of “Kalifah” or caliphate. This is the concept of establishing a Muslim state, similar to Israel, that would represent and act in accordance with Islamic law.
Jihadists make no qualms over their use of force to accomplish their goal of imposing Islam, there are more moderate Islamists who seek to achieve the same goal of imposing fundamentalist Islamic law through other, more traditional political means.
Islam and Islamism and the difference between them | Metro News
So what are the major tenants of this fundamentalist Islamic law they seek to impose?
Major components of Islamism include Umma, Khilafa, Sharia and Jihad.
According to another former Islamist, Dr. Usama Hasan, Islamists apply Islamic scripture out of context with little to no reference to history or a holistic view of the world. According to Hasan,
Viewpoint: What do radical Islamists actually believe in? - BBC News
These messages are spread by apply the lens of Umma (nation), or the Islamist obsession with the Muslim people and the imagined suffering. Hasan describes this as
Khilafa (caliphate), touched on above, is the idea that Muslims have a duty to create “Islamic states.” The Islamic states would then be ruled by Sharia (law), the concept that Islamists are duty-bound to implement and enforce medieval Islamic jurisprudence within the established Muslim state.
According to Hasan, this leads to
According to Hasan, there is a less sinister concept of Jihad found in the Koran which is essentially about the sacred and physical-spiritual nature of life's struggles, as summed up by "strive in God", a verse revealed in the pacifist period of Islam before war was permitted.
Islamists will purposefully conflate the two definitions of Jihad, to try and soften their desire to impose their idea of Islamic law by force.
This is only scratching the surface of the differences of Islam and Islamism, but hopefully this will generate some thoughtful and civil discussion.
For me personally, trying to understand the differences between the religious and political aspects of Islam and Islamism has been an eye-opening experience. It’s provided context that’s allowed me to examine the more intricate aspects of each, and avoid painting all Muslims with too broad of a brush.
I also highly recommend reading “Radical” by Majeed Nawaz. It’s a fascinating story of how young Muslim men are radicalized. I stumbled across a copy in my local library and it was a surprisingly easy read.
I’ve been doing a lot of reading on the subject recently, so I thought I’d open this thread up for a discussion of the concept of Islamism and how specifically, it differs from Islam as a religion. Hopefully by helping to define the difference between the two, we’re better prepared as a group to discuss the actions of Islamists, so as not to confuse them with the religious beliefs of practicing Muslims.
The following is my attempt to explain how I’ve come to understand the definition of an Islamist, and how it differs to Islam as a religion. And yes, there is a difference. (Bear with me, as I tried to be thorough and provide relevant links, so this post is pretty long.)
First, it’s critically important to understand that Islamists take a fundamentalist view of societal standards and Islamic law, while viewing Islam through a political, not religious lens. That means Islamism is a political ideology first and foremost. It is not born out of religion, but in fact uses religious tenants to try and build support for a political movement.
In his book, “Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism,” Majeed Nawaz sums up this concept nicely.
Islam is a religion, and its Shari’ah can be compared to Talmudic or Canon law. As a religion, Islam contains all the usual schisms of any other faith. There are ancient creedal disputes, from which we have the two major denominations of Sunni and Shia, each giving rise to numerous sects within their ranks. From methodological disputes, legal theorists and traditionalists have debated whether scripture was best approached through systemized reasoning or oral tradition. From juristic differences, major schools of law emerged. And from a devotional angle, lapsed, traditional, fundamentalist, and extremist Muslims have always existed. Superseding all these religious disagreements, and influencing many of them politically, is the idea of Islamism. Simply defined, Islamism is the desire to impose any given interpretation of Islam over society as law. In Islamism is not another religious schism, but an ideological thought that seeks to develop a coherent political system. Understood in this way, Islamism is not another religious schism, but an ideological thought that seeks to develop a coherent political system that can house all the schism, without necessarily doing away with them. Whereas disputes within Islam deal with a person’s approach to religion, Islamism seeks to deal with a person’s approach to society.”
A little background:
Majeed Nawaz is a Muslim of Pakistani decent and a second-generation British citizen. He was recruited to an Islamist organization called Hizb ut-Tahir (HT) as a teenager in England. He would go on to become one of the most successful recruiters and spokesmen for HT, helping to establish satellite groups across England, Denmark, Pakistan, and Egypt.
Ultimately it was recruitment efforts in Egypt in the early 2000s that led to Nawaz’s arrest and four-year prison term. HT was a banned organization in Egypt due to a failed coup against Anwar Sadat in the 1970s. Eventually another militant Islamist group, Tanzim al-Jihad, was able to recruit a core group of Egyptian military members that assassinated Sadat in 1981. Tanzim al-Jihad went on to split into two factions, including the more violent and extreme, Jihad al Islami, led by Ayman al Zawahiri. Zawahiri later merged his group with Bin Laden to form al-Qaeda.
While Islamist groups aren’t inherently violent, and they don’t always employ violent tactics, they do often align ideologically with many tenants of Jihadi Islamist groups. One of the ultimate goals of Islamists is the establishment of “Kalifah” or caliphate. This is the concept of establishing a Muslim state, similar to Israel, that would represent and act in accordance with Islamic law.
Jihadists make no qualms over their use of force to accomplish their goal of imposing Islam, there are more moderate Islamists who seek to achieve the same goal of imposing fundamentalist Islamic law through other, more traditional political means.
Islam and Islamism and the difference between them | Metro News
So what are the major tenants of this fundamentalist Islamic law they seek to impose?
Major components of Islamism include Umma, Khilafa, Sharia and Jihad.
According to another former Islamist, Dr. Usama Hasan, Islamists apply Islamic scripture out of context with little to no reference to history or a holistic view of the world. According to Hasan,
“These fundamentalist readings result in the resistance to progress in the areas of human rights, gender equality and democratic socio-political reforms.”
Viewpoint: What do radical Islamists actually believe in? - BBC News
These messages are spread by apply the lens of Umma (nation), or the Islamist obsession with the Muslim people and the imagined suffering. Hasan describes this as
“a firmly entrenched victimhood and perpetual sense of grievance.”
Khilafa (caliphate), touched on above, is the idea that Muslims have a duty to create “Islamic states.” The Islamic states would then be ruled by Sharia (law), the concept that Islamists are duty-bound to implement and enforce medieval Islamic jurisprudence within the established Muslim state.
According to Hasan, this leads to
“the obsession with enforcing the veiling of women, discriminating against women and non-Muslims and implementing penal codes that include amputations, floggings, beheadings and stonings to death, all seen as a sacred, God-given duty that cannot be changed.
Jihad (sacred struggle) for Islamists is an obsession with violence, whether of a military, paramilitary or terrorist nature. Their Jihad aims to protect and expand the Islamic state. Extremists even dream of conquering the whole world for Islamism by militarily defeating the US, Europe, Israel, India, China and Russia.”
According to Hasan, there is a less sinister concept of Jihad found in the Koran which is essentially about the sacred and physical-spiritual nature of life's struggles, as summed up by "strive in God", a verse revealed in the pacifist period of Islam before war was permitted.
Islamists will purposefully conflate the two definitions of Jihad, to try and soften their desire to impose their idea of Islamic law by force.
This is only scratching the surface of the differences of Islam and Islamism, but hopefully this will generate some thoughtful and civil discussion.
For me personally, trying to understand the differences between the religious and political aspects of Islam and Islamism has been an eye-opening experience. It’s provided context that’s allowed me to examine the more intricate aspects of each, and avoid painting all Muslims with too broad of a brush.
I also highly recommend reading “Radical” by Majeed Nawaz. It’s a fascinating story of how young Muslim men are radicalized. I stumbled across a copy in my local library and it was a surprisingly easy read.