Talk:Islamism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Alternatives to the introduction

I have read all the above comments dealing with a new introduction. This is very encouraging. I feel like we are getting somewhere.

On User:24.7.141.159's version. I have criticisms. We have to give the reader some distinct terms to fall back on. In these first paragraphs, we must make Islamism as different from Islam as possible. Issues, like deen, would be better placed in the definition section. However, I recognize such issues are very important. Still, I think it is much to ask the reader to assimilate the similarities and differences of Muslim and Islamist in the introduction. It adds length and complexity. So the first paragraph, I feel, should only mention Islamists and only what makes them distinct as such. The second should only mention the major usages.

Also, I must agree with Graft, the emphasis on anti-Westernism is too much. Not only is it not universal to all Islamists (some contemporary groups), it is not essential and not unique to Islamism. Yes, it is a very strong aspect of the movement, but it is a flavor, like nationalism or modernism. However, I disagree with Graft about secularism. The Islamist emphasis on a "regressive" view of history (polemical terminology) is an attempt to return to times when secularism was not even a possibility; a change of perspective. It is a way of vividly showing to other Muslims that Islam should not be repressed in a secular society. Islamism becomes Islamism in reaction to secularism, but it would be wrong to define Islamism *only* by this. The core of Islamism is not really political, but its active agenda has always been to resist native and foreign ideas of secularism. And as history teaches, secularism came out of a religious world view! Note also, anti-secular is not the same as anti-Western.

Here is the a rewrite of the first two paragraphs:

No-force Version

Islamism refers to anti-secular political ideologies derived from fundamentalist interpretations of the religion of Islam. While all Muslims believe that Islam is a both a religion and a way of life, Islamists generally assert that Islam should be the dominant and exclusive philosophy of governance. Many Islamists advocate a theocratic political system that can implement legal, economic and social policies in accordance with certain interpretations of Islamic law.

The use of the term "Islamism" is controversial. Individuals labeled Islamists often regard themselves as simply observant Muslims and oppose using the term. In contrast, moderate Muslims and liberal movements within Islam generally apply the term to distinguish themselves from groups and philosophies with which they do not identify. However, the term is often misapplied to denote Muslims who engage in violent or insurgent activities.

With-force Version

Islamism refers to anti-secular political ideologies derived from fundamentalist interpretations of the religion of Islam. While all Muslims believe that Islam is a both a religion and a way of life, Islamists generally assert that the use of force is warranted to ensure Islam is the dominant and exclusive philosophy of governance. Many Islamists advocate a theocratic political system, or Islamic state, that can implement legal, economic and social policies in accordance with certain interpretations of Islamic law.

The use of the term "Islamism" is controversial. Individuals labeled Islamists often regard themselves as simply observant Muslims and oppose using the term. In contrast, moderate Muslims and liberal movements within Islam generally apply the term to distinguish themselves from groups and philosophies with which they do not identify. However, the term is often misapplied to denote any Muslims who engage in violent or insurgent activities.

I know this does not satisfy a compromise and I am sensitive to that. Let us keep working though. Also, I can provide a line-by-line commentary on User:24.7.141.159's version if that is desired. I will not be editting the article introduction for now. --Vector4F editted 17:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think, that the similarities and differences of Muslim and Islamist are very important and should therefore be in the introduction. I prefer 24's version, which says, that Muslims generally assert that Islam, as both a religion and a social system (Deen), should be practiced as a philosophy by the government. Raphael1 23:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reconsidered and made a change to the above. A sentence now reads: While all Muslims believe that Islam is a both a religion and a way of life, Islamists generally assert that Islam should be the dominant and exclusive philosophy of governance. I hope this communicates a distinction which not all Muslims share. Still, I recommend avoiding cracking open the debate about Muslims and Islamists in the first paragraphs. --Vector4F 03:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My major problem is with this phrase: ... Islamists generally assert that Islam should be the dominant and exclusive philosophy of governance. Many Muslims believe that too and it could be argued that Bhutto also believes that as well. How do we differentiate a Muslim from an Islamist? The problem is the term Islamist is more a of Western distinction rather than something coming from within Islam. Differentiating Muslim from Islamist therefore mandates that we talk about that aspect. Do you see now why this term is such a slippery slope? I appreciate the discussion thusfar. 24.7.141.159 04:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, that the main distinction between Muslim and Islamist is the way how they want to reach the goal of an islamic governance. At least the media generally only refers to an Islamist, if a Muslim used violence somehow or other. Raphael1 15:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for aiding my understanding. No matter how much one studies, it is good to have alternative perspectives. I readily agree that "Islamist" comes from an orientalist, Western tradition. I do not wish to advance this perspective in the article. It is true that Islamism as known by the majority of Westerners came about from discussion around major events (Iranian revolution, Sadat's assasination, WTC bombings and 9/11, etc.). This is a stigma and ignorance which is naturally coupled with Western suspicions about counter-secular religious movements. I have serious reserves about giving these suspicions any further ground. We must deal with them, but in recognition of their hypersensitive, Western-leaning context.

Here is my thinking. I am wondering if we *need* to say Islamism is about the justification for the use of force to establish Islam in a primary, constitutional sense for a state-society. To a Westerner, the issue is clearly about anti-secularism, but to the Muslim (particularly the Arab Muslim) the critical point seems to be the use of force. I suppose, though, the justification for force is not the same as advocating force outright; neither does it immediately lead us to something we might loosely call terrorism. Like speaking of "political ideologies", we are speaking of public agendas and only suggesting a religious core. So too, the "use of force" also leaves open the centre of the phenomena, which is the invocation of j-h-d for specific ends.

I have split the changes above, so we can compare. One version encorporates justification for the use of violence/force, and the original does not. I would still prefer to keep the "anti-secular" adjective.Vector4F 17:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't agree with either version regardless of the "with force" phrase. To illustrate my point, let me change the sentence around:

Democracies generally assert that the use of force is warranted to ensure democratic principle is the dominant and exclusive philosophy of governance.

You see, the US has used force in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Chile, Vietnam, etc to ensure democratic principles reign over Islamically-based governments and communism. To merely state that any group is willing to use force to establish their beliefs and protect their way of life seems to be nothing more than restating the obvious. For example, Bhutto and Sharif both used force, trials, and punishment throughout their tenures to ensure that the laws of Pakistan were followed. Could it be argued that since Pakistani laws are crafted to not violate basic tenants in Sharia, both Bhutto and Sharif are using force to maintain some semblence of Islamic governance? Sure. Are Bhutto and Sharif Islamists? Probably not.

Your version: "Islamism refers to anti-secular political ideologies derived from fundamentalist interpretations of the religion of Islam."

Isn't any follower of a religion that call itself a way of life automatically anti-secular? Although I understand that you want to keep the term anti-secular, it sounds like a buzzword thrown in. In my version of the introduction, I tried to keep it in line with what Islamism truely is: a definition and boundary created by Western thinkers.

My version: "Islamism refers to any political Muslim movement perceived to harbor anti-secular and, consequently, anti-Western political ideologies derived from fundamentalist interpretations of the religion of Islam."

The issue with Islamism is not necessarily that it is a political ideology but rather a political ideology that Westerners feel threatens our way of life. Hence, when these groups confront followers of more Westernized brands of thinking, we react by labeling them "Islamists" who follow "Islamism." Ask yourself this: why progressive Muslim movements who advocate the use of force to implement Western style democracies are not called "Islamist" movements? This why we should make sure to address why their is a motivation to have this term and who actually uses it.

Your version: "While all Muslims believe that Islam is a both a religion and a way of life, Islamists generally assert that the use of force is warranted to ensure Islam is the dominant and exclusive philosophy of governance.

The first phrase (up to the comma) I agree with completely because it finally puts the Islamism article in agreement with the rest of the Islamic articles on Wikipedia. The second phrase I disagree with because most Muslims believe Islam should be the dominant and exclusive philsophy of governance. Case in point, when "liberating" Iraq, Americans opposed the desire of Iraqis to add a clause to their constitution that no law could violate Sharia. Are we going to call all the liberated people of Iraq who elected representatives under our occupation to be "Islamists"? I don't think so. Yet, we need to differentiate between Islamists and regular Muslims because as the definition stands, any Muslim is wrongly labeled an Islamist if s/he proclaims that their religion (which is a way of life) should be the basis of government.

My version: "Muslims generally assert that Islam, as both a religion and a social system (Deen), should be practiced as a philosophy by the government. Many Muslims advocate a theocratic political system that can implement legal, economic and social policies in accordance with certain interpretations of Islamic law."

This is why I make it very clear that a Muslim cannot be labeled an Islamist simply because they advocate Islam as a basis of government.

Your version: "Many Islamists advocate a theocratic political system, or Islamic state, that can implement legal, economic and social policies in accordance with certain interpretations of Islamic law."

Okay, that's fine but you do realze that more than a simple majority of Muslims feel the same way, right? We are blurring the distinction between Muslim and Islamist.

My version: "The term Islamism is a means to define any group of Muslims that stray from widely held customs and traditions of European populations."

The fact is Islamism is nothing more than a label given to any group that asserts governance in accordance with Islam that may be at odds with traditional historically percieved to be European. Neglecting this fact simply does not do justice to the aim of what Islamism really is: a label. 24.7.141.159 01:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for response and patience, User:24.7.141.159.

"Could it be argued that since Pakistani laws are crafted to not violate basic tenants in Sharia, both Bhutto and Sharif are using force to maintain some semblence of Islamic governance? Sure. Are Bhutto and Sharif Islamists? Probably not."

As you say, it can be argued and that is the reason this article exists. Sharif and Bhutto both use Islam as a tool of government. That is not anti-secular - they are not taking an opposition to secularism - it is simply non-secular and somewhat theocratic. However, there are other judgments to make here before we can cry Islamism. Do they derive the basis of their legitimacy from a particular interpretation of Islam? If they were not Muslims, would they still *legally* be leaders? Is their adherence ideological or simply practical? If one ascents or enforces a law, which happens to be derived from Shar’ia, that does not make one an Islamist. That is simply a function of government. Islamism is an advocacy of giving an interpretation of Islam the authority of state. Making Islam law is more than making laws based on Islam. Yes, these two statements are very different. I have argued elsewhere about the difference between causality and correlation. Some Western countries go far and say no laws based on a religion; other countries go the other way and say no law without religious basis. Most states are in-between. Islamists are clearly on one side, though they may work from one end of the spectrum to the other.

"To merely state that any group is willing to use force to establish their beliefs and protect their way of life seems to be nothing more than restating the obvious."

No, I must disagree. The use of force is not universally justified by all agents for their respective causes. Not all adherents of Islam believe that they should kill, for example, to ensure that their government implements Islamic law. And the U.S. is a state/government, not a religion. It’s actions are justified, in all technicality, on a non-religious basis. Advocacy of the U.S. government to do anything - even to create an Islamic state in Iraq - is not Islamism. Such advocacy may agree with Islamist goals, but it is not Islamism. The basis of advocacy is as important as the content of such advocacy.

"...why progressive Muslim movements who advocate the use of force to implement Western style democracies are not called "Islamist" movements?"

Because democracy is not a religion, unless we mean any ideology which advocates a human system is a religion. Because a Western government is not constituted on a religion. Because an Islamist movement claims to be purely constituted on a religion. Because a Muslim who advocates a war for a political ideology which is not religiously based cannot be basing their claims on something called “Islamism”.

"Isn't any follower of a religion that call itself a way of life automatically anti-secular?"

No, secularism here is about political philosophy, the legitimacy and social contract of a government and state. Is the government an agent or benefactor of a religion by law? An individual may advocate a secular government and still be religious. Islamists generally argue that a Muslim *cannot*. They believe secularism is anti-Islam, not just non-Islamic. That is, an Islamist believes Muslims cannot be Muslims under a secular government (e.g. the U.K. government).

"The fact is Islamism is nothing more than a label given..."

This same logic has been used to say that "Islam" is just a label. I do not want to go down this line of argument, though. We can call Islamism postulate #99 as advanced by a random Muslim in a Cairo cafe. But, let me make sure I understand you correctly. Islamism points to nothing other than a Western interpretation? There are no Islamists except with a Western pair of eyes picking them out? --Vector4F 05:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you could give me a response.

That is not anti-secular - they are not taking an opposition to secularism - it is simply non-secular and somewhat theocratic.

In that sentence, you were referring to Bhutto and Sharif. Unfortunately, with all due respect, you are not aware of the political problems Sharif went through in matters regarding Sharia. I would recommend that you do some research on these matters because Bhutto and Sharif would be squarely called Islamists under your definition. Quite frankly, the last fragment is nothing more than a play on words made to bolster your position in this argument. Yet, when we look at groups like the Brotherhood and Hasan al-Bana, they too are not necessarily anti-secular but rather non-secular and theocratic. Any example that you could provide from Hasan al-Bana's writings of anti-secularism could found in the histories of Muslims who you'd wouldn't label Islamist. This is the point you can't seem to concede. You can't seem to let go of your insistance that Islamism is squarely a Western term that has no analogue in local languages and cultures within the Islamic world.

Do they derive the basis of their legitimacy from a particular interpretation of Islam?

You would be hard pressed to find any Islamic group relying soly on the "legitimacy of their particular interpretation of Islam" for their position. Lack of understanding this point shows even more clearly where the disconnect occurs between Western commentators and Muslims on these matters. You may want to try to cite Wahabis or Salafis are an example of how this is statement could be incorrect, but I assure you that very few Wahabis and Salafis derive their legitimacy solely from their interpretation. They will show their reasons for believing what they do and whether you believe them or not is usually of no consequence ot them. To understand this you have to be a Muslim who has grown up in a Muslim environment before confronting these issues with Muslim paradigms. As it stands, reading that question invokes the image of an average white American who grew up in the suburbs trying to explain the phenomenon of racism against African Americans. Or put another way, you're trying to ask an American if he derives his legitimacy as a politically active citizen because of his ties to the Republican party. Beliefs and stances are just that. Where you seem to be getting hung up is because Islam happens to be a religion. Yet, if Islam was a political philosophy alone then you could get over that hurdle.

If they were not Muslims, would they still *legally* be leaders?

Quite frankly, they wouldn't be elected much like African Americans and women won't be elected to power in the United States any time soon. Can non-Muslims run? In most cases the answer is yes. Yet, women and Blacks can run for President in the United States but they won't be elected. This is where the Muslim world has us Americans beat. They've already had more than a few female heads of state. I'm going off on a tangent. Islamic history clearly shows non-Muslims were in extremely high ranks of government in just about every Islamic empire. For example, Maimonides was the chief physician for the Court of Saladin and also happened to be Jewish. As you may recall, physicians were more than just experts in medicine but also provided feedback in many spheres of governance, war, and other other policy. As a society, Muslims are allowed to make decisions on what is acceptable or not. Apostasy falls under that realm and I'm sure a leader doing that publically would spark a national debate in whatever Muslim country may occured in.

Is their adherence ideological or simply practical?

I don't think you and I cannot and should not be going in this direction. Asking this question wreaks of the orientalist spirit that Edward Said spoke and wrote so much about. It is extremely arrogant on your part to callously assume that anyone claiming to follow Islam is just doing for the practical purpose of being elected. However, because we are doing this in the spirit of Wikipedia, I challenge you to speak to more than a handful of retired Muslim heads of state for the purpose of asking this question and to also see how they practice their religion at home. I think you'd be surprised to see that most, if not all, have an ideological adherence. Furthermore, I'd be even more surprised if the person you'd be asking wouldn't throw you out of their home for asking such an offensive question. Although I will say that most dictators the West has supported in Muslim countries only really follow Islam from a practical prespective.

If one ascents or enforces a law, which happens to be derived from Shar’ia, that does not make one an Islamist. That is simply a function of government.

I agree with you but the definition of Islamism, as written in the article, is incorrect and should be altered to reflect this fact.

Islamism is an advocacy of giving an interpretation of Islam the authority of state. Making Islam law is more than making laws based on Islam. Yes, these two statements are very different.

Islam is all about interpretation and neglecting to acknowledge this fact opens the door to me asking you (quite directly): Do you understand what Islam is? I'm very sorry if that sounds harsh but Islam is very much a religion that has some clearly defined borders. These borders are "edge cases" such as the belief in one God and the messengers. The major point that you must grasp is that within those borders there is a whole universe of different interpretations--if we must label it then I'd call it a grey area. The reason why there are different types of interpretation is because of the wiggle room built into Islam. Muslims believe that Islam is the final and most perfect religion from God and will survive the test of time. Logically speaking, the only way a collection of scripture could theoretically be applicable to all ages without any modification would be to leave deliniation of rulings on various topics not yet considered to the scholars of the time. These scholars would take complex issues and break them down into more fundamental pieces on which scripture does give rulings. This is exactly what Islam is when viewed from an outsider's prespective. Hence, Islam has been interpretation from the beginning.

These days, Sunnis are the majority but within this "branch" are multiple schools of thought based on the works of scholars. Furthermore, Muslims believe that hand picking whatever interpretations they like on various topics is not right. The reason being is that a scholar examines the entire set of relatvent scriptures through a point of view that is more consistant across grey areas. In other words, if the scholar believes that a certain verse means something then when the phrase is repeated again, that scholar will stick to the original interpretation and that provides consistancy.

So why did I bother explaining all that to you? The reason is that Islam is based on the Qur'an and Sunnah but to practice the religion requires interpretation and therefore opening the door to different meanings on certain subjects. Pakistan's government is based largely on the Sunni interpretation of Islam and therefore the ultimate authority of state for decisions rendered in the courts and legislative bills. Yet, the Sunni interpretation is constantly reexamined and refined to deal with new and unseen issues. So a law based on Islam and an interpretation of Islam is actually very much the SAME THING!!! The states are actually not different at all but one in the same.

Not all adherents of Islam believe that they should kill, for example, to ensure that their government implements Islamic law.

You go towards oversimplifying again and fail to grasp my point again. Fire of all, please point out any legit groups that squarely dictates that they must kill to implement Islamic without advocating anything else. To somehow differentiate the US Government's actions to implement democracy using military force is not too different than some organizations in the Muslim world. The US, like certain Islamic groups, has a certain set of accepted political ideologies which they seek others to follow. The key difference is that the US is a superpower with the resources to project its military force beyond its borders with the blessings of its citizens. Whether these ideologies are those of European philosophers in the case of democracy or religion, the end goals are the same: having others follow the way the group or nation feel is the best solution. I would openly urge you to consider the actions of the U.S. government over the past century because ample evidence exists where we have gone to topple governments and attack ideologies we did not find to be agreeable.

Because democracy is not a religion, unless we mean any ideology which advocates a human system is a religion.

I'm glad you see that. Now we need to work on you understanding that Islam is a human system encompassing ideology and religion as classically defined by Western thinkers.

Because a Muslim who advocates a war for a political ideology which is not religiously based cannot be basing their claims on something called “Islamism”.

What's your point? Maybe an anology will help. Can we draw a parallel between a Christian who advocates war on a religious basis and call their belief based on Christianism? What do we call speakers like Pat Robertson and others that shameless promote intolerance and war against Muslims in the hopes of having their ideologies adopted? The fact is that Islamism is a label against any Muslim group that advocates using war as a means to defend their nation and way of life. The very fact that Islamist and Islamism are terms thrown around when describing criminals and terrorists of the Islamic faith makes these an even more effective means of playing pyschological games associated with labels. As long as a Muslim advocates implementing democracy and using war as a means to do so, he will be heralded as a hero. If a Muslim advocates an Islamic government and suggests using war to defend his way of life, then he is an Islamist. This, ladies and gentlemen, demonstrates my problem with the term Islamism and position that Vector4F is taking. It's a position that is clearly anti-Islamic, ethnocentric and extremely arrogant.

Is the government an agent or benefactor of a religion by law?

Most Muslims believe Islam to be a religion and a way of life (deen). Their government is must draw its position from the laws of God instead of the laws of philisophers. That choice is the society's to make. Advocating one to be superior than the other is fine. Imposing the term Islamism on "the other side" wreaks of arrogance.

An individual may advocate a secular government and still be religious.

But most Muslims don't advocate a "secular government" as you've defined it. They advocate their governments to follow the common interpretation of Islamic scripture.

Islamists generally argue that a Muslim *cannot*.

So are you saying all Muslims are Islamists too then? Or are you saying that Muslims living in the West aren't Islamists but every other one is?

They believe secularism is anti-Islam, not just non-Islamic.

When Islam is both a religion and a way of life with defined government and economic systems, then being secular at the expensive of supressing Islam is rightfully called anti-Islamic. Logically speaking, if we critique the actions in Iraq where we (the U.S. government) rejected a line in the Iraqi Constitution that would say no law would go against Sharia in the hopes to establish a "secular" government then we have our answer. The West is advocating the position of being anti-Islamic because they want Muslims to follow Islam spiritually but ignore the directives in it which have been traditionally viewed by the West as domains of secularism. Hence, my reasoning for calling Islamism a Western preception which Muslims do not distinguish between internally.

This same logic has been used to say that "Islam" is just a label.

No, Islam is a religion with over a billion followers. Islamism is a label to describe anyone with political aspirations that disagree with western beliefs. As I stated earlier and you then confirmed. If a Muslim uses Islam to wage war for the established of government based on democratic interpretations, he is not an Islamist. If the same Muslim advocates a position suggesting a Caliphate then he is automatically an Islamist even though the real process of select a Caliph actually conforms to ideals more congruent with democracy than not.

I do not want to go down this line of argument, though.

It doesn't matter if you want to go down this line of argument or not because any discussion on defining Islamism automatically makes this a necessary point to be discussed.

Islamism points to nothing other than a Western interpretation? There are no Islamists except with a Western pair of eyes picking them out?

If you want to oversimplify, then I would say Islamism is a construct of Westerners to label any group not in line with our beliefs.

Quite frankly, you seem to be getting hung up on the religion issue as I pointed out earlier. Why do you have this aversion towards a religion with teachings that go beyond the spiritual belief in a God, angels and a devil? Could it be that your Western paradigms preclude the ability of you to understand this point? Again, I mean you no disrespect but thusfar your respose panders to the Western preception of religion and governance. This is the reason why my introduction clearly stated that Islamism is a label advocated by Western thinkers.

I can see why many Muslim wikipedians give up and not bother with this stuff. I still stand by my original definition because you still haven't told me what is wrong with it. Maybe you need to do a line-by-line analysis of it otherwise the three of us are in favor of it versus you. Maybe it is time we implemented a little bit of democracy ourselves. lol! 24.7.141.159 12:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My intro

Islamism refers to any political Muslim movement perceived to harbor anti-secular and, consequently, anti-Western political ideologies derived from fundamentalist interpretations of the religion of Islam. Muslims generally assert that Islam, as both a religion and a social system (Deen), should be practiced as a philosophy by the government. Many Muslims advocate a theocratic political system that can implement legal, economic and social policies in accordance with certain interpretations of Islamic law. The term Islamism is a means to define any group of Muslims that stray from widely held customs and traditions of European populations. The use of this term is typically considered a form of triumphalism by Muslims.

24.7.141.159 12:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, if that label is justified or whether there should be a label for US doctrine (democrationist, secularist, ...) too. The question we have to think about is, what does Islamism refer to. I'd say, it should emphasise on being anti-western, violent and anti-secular. Islamism doesn't really make sense in a muslim nation, even if a western mind might worry about non-muslim minorities or the "human rights vs. Sharia" problem in islamic states. Muslims have problems in secular but still primarily christian cultures too, but that doesn't make them Islamists unless they detonate a bomb. Raphael1 14:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree for the most part with your response. The percieved qualities of Anti-westernism, anti-secularism, and violence are hallmarks of what Western thinkers like to term Islamism. Whether these elements actually exist or not and whether Western religious and political establishments (i.e. national governments) use the same means to achieve their ends may not be relavent to the actual definition of Islamism but it provides a frame-of-reference. It also illustrates the concept of HIStory being the written record of the group in power rather than a true NPOV account of what really happened. I believe I touch on all of these elements within my proposed introduction and help differentiate people like Benazir Bhutto (as discussed above) from the causal Islamist. I just hope we can reach a consensus soon. 24.7.141.159 15:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User:24.7.141.159, I disagree with your position. However, my disagreement is not substantially important. I recommend you edit the article to reflect your definition. I will not try to change or undermine it, though I do not endorse it.

One last comment. If this sounds arrogant, I apologize. I am not sure that you understand the problem which you suggest is my problem: The Western perspective and the construction of Islamism. I would recommend you consider the reverse position, wherein a Muslim seeks to understand this “Western” perspective by virtue of a label. To paraphrase Rumi (though in a way disagreeable to him): beyond our ideas of where we stand, one against the other, there is a field; the world is too rich for the poverty of our language. Inna lillahi wa inna ilahi raji'un. --Vector4F 02:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Vector4F: No, I cannot edit it without reaching a middle ground. I have my reasons for wanting it this way and I'm sure you understand. You bring up an interesting point and one that I'd like to explore. I'm a born and raised American which gives me a unique view on these matters since I was raised in a very culturally aware household. I don't necessarily have a problem with the construct of Islamism until we start getting to the point of redefining Islam with our paradigms. For us, religion is a Sunday morning thing to do and government is something we like to proclaim to be devoid of absolute control by religion. Whether these concepts are a result of the action of the Church over the past two thousand years is beyond what I'm willing to write about at the moment. However, what we do know is that Islam is a religion and ideology constructed of a mixture of what many of us consider to be oil and water. I understand this concept can be quite difficult to grasp even for someone like me. Yet my argument on these pages has a point and that point is not to upset you but something bigger.

The crime in all of this is not necessarily that the two of us disagree but that our definition serves to label seemingly innocent people under this term and all its associated emotion. In 2006, five years after Islam become our mortal enemy in the United States, many topics of Islamism, Islamophobia, etc are being defined in the collective awareness of the Western world through seemingly tinted lenses. People with all sorts of agendas that ultimately malign Muslims and Islam have hijacked this religion to redefine it in their image. Every day we are bombarded with news of Muslims practicing their religion but doing so under the watchful eyes of law enforcement. Want to donate to your local Mosque? Be careful because their may happen to be some nut case who frequents the Mosque so in the next FBI round-up you'll be picked up and put on trial for supporting terrorism. Want to send your kids to religious school? Be careful because religious schools are usually referred to as "terrorist training camps" by the mainstream media. These are just two small examples of where we are headed. The end result is Muslims must turn their religion from a deen (way of life) to a Sunday affair while adopting as many Western philosophies into their daily lives even when they are at odds with Islamic teachings. In essence, Islam just becomes a label rather than a practice.

Muslims in the West have had a hard time making sure these terms and ideas fairly portray their religion. However, Muslims are aware of the reality that if they do not act, then they will be forced to stop practicing their religion in the way it was intended because doing so may not necessarily be illegal but because it evokes a guilt by association mentality in others. This is one of the reasons why I have fought so hard to maintain this article in way that is fair to the world's billion or so Muslims. I would hate to see the grandchildren of today's Muslim youth precluded from participating in the American political establishment because of their adherence to a religion that also as serves as an ideology. Maybe you can understand my position and see it from my angle.

I apprecaite the Rumi quote and don't find it arrogant at all. By the way, Inna lillahi wa inna ilahi raji'un is a quotation from Islamic scripture and it means: "Surely we belong to Allah and surely we will return to Him." 24.7.141.159 06:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My very short response to the critics of this article: plenty of other religions also prescribe a way of life. However, in the 21st century, most of the time their followers are satisfied to merely try to practice that way of life themselves, and let everyone else do whatever they wish (well, they may try to convince them, but not force them). This is the crux of the issue: an Islamist is a Muslum who is unwilling to merely practice the "right" way of life themselves, and seeks to have Islam take over government in order to make everyone else follow the "right" way of life. This is not a western perspective, it is a modern perspective: many, many non-westerners who have come under attack by militant Islam(ism) would ardently support that point of view (Christians in parts of Africa, Buddhists in Asia, ...). An Islamist is someone who is not willing to live and let live. Is every observant Muslim an Islamist? I sincerely hope you're wrong about that. There are some prominent examples of countries in which the government is secular and a large majority of the population is Muslim (Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan). Are they not "real" Muslims? ObsidianOrder 08:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I don't mean to be disrespectful but you are completely clueless with this statement:

most of the time their followers are satisfied to merely try to practice that way of life themselves, and let everyone else do whatever they wish (well, they may try to convince them, but not force them)

Unfortunately, your comment is rather ignorant and uninformed. I'm not going to sit here and try to educate you on where you are wrong because Google has ample amounts of information.

Is every observant Muslim an Islamist?

The way you are trying define it, every Muslim must be an Islamist. Again ignorance.

I sincerely hope you're wrong about that.

Actually you're wrong to characterize all Muslims as Islamists if they happen to practice their religion. I'd also like to remind you that there are over a billion Muslims and a majority of them practice their religion. If Muslims really truly were the way you seem to want to portray them, then odds are that life on this planet would be pretty difficult for non-Muslims. Please, life the blinders off your eyes.

There are some prominent examples of countries in which the government is secular and a large majority of the population is Muslim (Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan). Are they not "real" Muslims?

Your example of Turkey is off because the government was imposed secularism against the will of the people. This is clearly anti-democratic and also goes against widely accepted teachings in Islam.

Your example of Pakistan is also wrong. Nawaz Sharif worked hard to have Sharia implemented and judges across the Pakistani nation rely on Sharia for their verdicts.

It seems like you have a knowledge gap that needs to close before we can have a productive conversation. 128.97.247.141 09:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to close a knowledge gap, but you need to drop the arrogant attitude.

"The way you are trying define it, every Muslim must be an Islamist." - not my definition, that is the meaning of the word in common usage, I can cite examples if you wish. However, that every Muslim must be an Islamist is just your opinion, nothing more. No doubt a popular opninion among Islamists.

"ignorant and uninformed" - I never said that people always get along perfectly, but most of the time there is a degree of tolerance, and in some places tolerance is a virtue. You can try to convert people to Islam in the USA without getting killed. If you were to go to Afghanistan in 2000 and try to convert people to Christianity, you would certainly have been killed (and people were, just on the suspicion of that). That is a significant difference, wouldn't you say?

"Turkey is off because the government was imposed" - seems like part of a popular movement to me (see Turkish War of Independence). The question was put to the vote not too long after. Ok, Pakistan was perhaps not a great example, but there are others - Malaysia? I notice you're not saying anything about Indonesia either.

"If Muslims really truly were the way you seem to want to portray them..." - no, that's the way you want to portray them, not me "...life on this planet would be pretty difficult" - and in places in which there are people like that, it certainly is. Fortunately, a small minority. ObsidianOrder

I strongly support Vector4F's "no-force" version of the intro, as I think it very clearly and concisely states what the term means and what connotations it comes with. Islamism is literally "any political movement based on Islam" (or: "Islam as politics"), but Vector4F's version brings in some important elements that commonly go with that, namely anti-secularism, exclusivity and theocracy. Whether all Muslims are, or should be, Islamist if they are "real" Muslims according to your vision of Islam is immaterial to the definition. ObsidianOrder 08:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Vector4F, do you see what I mean by ObsidianOrder's uninformed response? Islam is a deen (way of life) with political, economic and other items which I have written about quite a bit above. Unfortunately, it seems like ObsidianOrder didn't bother reading any of it.

Islamism is literally "any political movement based on Islam" (or: "Islam as politics")...

Why are you trying to redefine Islam ObsidianOrder? You can't mold Islam into your vision based on your paradigms. Islam is as much a religion as it is an ideology. Before responding, I'll ask you read this entire talk page before rehashing old arguments again. It's shows very poorly when you restate points that have already been refuted. Have a good day. 128.97.247.141 09:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"as much a religion as it is an ideology" - well, the wiki article says "Islam is a monotheistic faith", it does not go on to say "...and political ideology", you know. The two are obviously not the same. You think it is both, fine, but many people who would also call themselves Muslim would disagree with that, and you can't mold Islam into your vision either. I'm not trying to mold anything, I'm just essentially repeating the definitions of words from the dictionary. ObsidianOrder 09:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, are you going to tell me that Wiki article captures the essence of one thousand four hundred years of Islamic history and tradition? Please. Get real. Still, the Wiki article also calls Islam a DEEN which means "a way of life." You seem to think a monotheistic faith is mutually exclusive from secular life because religion can only be modeled in the paradigms in which you were born into. Let me bring the language down a few notches. You are a person who shares in the Western belief system. For you, religion is generally a Sunday affair. The concept that religion can encompass all spheres of everyday life evokes visions of Christian lunatics running through the streets. Yet, somehow, Muslims balance this out and squarely deal with this. Again, you have not bothered reading all the discussion above.' Please respect those of us on the talk page by reading the discussion above. Furthermore, judging by your previous contributions to Wikipedia, it is no surprise that you have an agenda to paint Islamic political ideologies in a negative light. 24.7.141.159 18:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"You are a person who..." - you know absolutely nothing about me. Who I am is also completely immaterial to this discussion, and so are my previous contributions (thanks for looking though). If we're throwing ad-hominem attacks I might say you are obviosuly an Islamist - but that doesn't matter either. "Muslims balance this out.." - do they? I think on the one hand there are the Muslims who don't believe that (most of them), and then there are those who believe it (a small minority) and who would support whatever the local equivalent of the Taliban is. "mutually exclusive from secular life" - never said it was mutually exclusive, they are just different things and hence there are different terms for them. Of course there is some overlap - your argument is that the overlap is 100%, and so there is no need for a distinction. Such a claim requires pretty strong evidence. "reading the discussion above" - I have. I am addressing a particular point which I do not believe has been adequately settled: not all Islam is Islamist or political, despite your claims. Show some evidence, please. "paint Islamic political ideologies" - I don't wish to do anything except describe them accurately. Whether people view them negatively as a result is not my problem. ObsidianOrder 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

see below 24.7.141.159 03:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding deen: the difference between a religion and an ideology is very simple: a religion tells you how you should live, an ideology tells you how everyone else should live. Traditionally, Islamic law applied only to Muslims, no matter where they were, and not to anyone else: for example Christians in Muslim countries could drink alcohol and so forth. Modern Islamists are trying to change that, insisting that Islamic law applies to everyone living within a certain territory, regardless of their faith (and by the way, what territory? if you listen to some, it is wherever any Muslims live). This is completely non-traditional. There are other religions which prescribe a complete "way of life": Tao litteraly means "way", and Buddhism has the "Eightfold Path" for example. But that does not make them inherently political, nor have they sought to enforce their way on everyone in a society. Let me give you a different example: suppose Catholics believe abortion is wrong. A good Catholic would not have an abortion or cause/help anyone else to, but even if they believe that very strongly they wouldn't necessarily vote to make it illegal for everyone. If they did vote to make it illegal for everyone, they would be a "Catholicist". This is precisely the point. You are saying that all Muslims must be Islamist as part of their faith. A few hundred million Muslims living in democratic countries with non-Islamist governments disagree with you (since presumably if they agreed, they would quickly vote such laws in). Can you provide some objective evidence that a large number/majority of Muslims see Islam as inherently political? And no, quoting scripture or religious authorities doesn't qualify - I'm looking for a direct measure such as an opinion poll or election results. Let me put it this way, this is not something you want to be right about. ObsidianOrder 22:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose Vector4Fs "no-force" version of the intro, as it unnecessarily expands the meaning of Islamism. The term Islamist is not used to describe Muslims, who desire to implement islamic principles in politics. Islamists rather assert that the use of force is warranted to ensure Islam is the dominant and exclusive philosophy of governance. This is what the term is generally used for, which is why Wikipedias should define it as such. Raphael1 09:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A quick search for uses of the word: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ... If the word means anything other than "Islam as a political ideology", I certainly can't figure that out from the examples. Can you? And - no, the "use of force" is not a necessary characteristic. "dominant and exclusive" - yes, that is probably true, but only as a corrolary. The last article says explicitly "what is the difference between Islam and Islamism? Fundamentally, it comes down to a pair of concepts: faith (Islam) and ideology (Islamism)". So how is Vector4F's intro expanding the meaning of Islamism again? ObsidianOrder 10:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from your sources: [12] "But during the last two decades violence seem to have become an intrinsic part of the Islamist ideology, and the will to use violence doesn't need much provocation anymore." [13] " Islamism, is a power-obsessed ideology. Like other 20th century "isms" -- Communism, Maoism, fascism, totalitarianism -- it is radical, repressive, cruel, contemptuous of human rights, and deeply hostile to outsiders." Raphael1 11:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate you jumping into the discussion with ObsidianOrder and myself right above this. It seems like s/he has a knowledge gap and an unwillingness to read the previous discussion on point s/he is bringing up. Maybe you can explain it better to him. 24.7.141.159 18:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem we're seeing here is that there are two seperate groups that claim "Islamism" as their label. There's the more radical groups and the more moderate, even liberal groups. Both sides have valid claims, but when we're working on the introductory paragraph we need to refer to both stances and explain them in a neutral manner. We can't give weight, due or undue, to either group because, as an introduction, we are simply defining the term in a general manner. Related to this is the User:Muslimsof... who added the tags this morning. He'd been trying to add too many definitions into the intro, imho, and I reverted his edits earlier since they were in this intro paragraph that we're working on above.... I did suggest, in my summary, that he take part in our discussion here, but instead he tagged the article. I'm going to remove those since these disputes ARE being discussed here in a positive way. I'll wait until there is some feedback before doing so though, rather than being bold in this instance. Kyaa the Catlord 12:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Kyaa, wow. Looks like some serious editing going on without much discussion. I agree, there are disputes on this topic but we're talking about it. You, Graft, Vector4F, Raphael1, and myself have contributed a lot of text here. Quite frankly, this talk page is probably more representative of what goes on around the term than the term itself. I understand where the User:Muslim... is coming from because he has expressed many of the things I've written about here while editing the article. The simple question remains: if Islamism is truly defined, then why is there so much disagreement? 24.7.141.159 18:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Raphael - very selective quoting, but even so: "during the last two decades" - meaning violence is not inherent to Islamism, but it has become a common characteristic (as I said); and "is a power-obsessed ideology...it is radical, repressive" - yes, and it can be all that even if the Islamist come to power without resorting to violence, for example as a result of an election (and that has indeed happened in a few places). ObsidianOrder 21:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So if violence has become a common characteristic and is now an intrinsic part of the Islamist ideology, why don't you want to write that in the article? Raphael1 12:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Where are we going

When Edward Said made his case against Orientalism, he was also making a case against essentialist Islam. His project of skeptical negation, based on the genealogical tradition hailing from Neitzsche, comes full circle in determining that there there is no essential Islam. This was, of course, the ground of much of Orientalism. In response, some scholars have sought to reconstruct Islam in a non-essential way (e.g. Al-Azmeh). If there is a Western misreading of Islam, I would point to those scholars who have tried to redefine Islam as fragmentary. This seems very Western, to my senses. However, I don't really concern myself with pointing fingers - Said, Foucault, etc. created their own problems and I don't care to share in them.

Still, I am always surprised that Said's thesis - opposition to Orientalism paired with a critique of terminology - is used by anyone trying to defend an essential interpretation of Islam. This line of inquiry can be used to negate an essential concept of Islam as surely as it negates Orientalism. (see Bobby Said, "A Fundamental Fear") I, for one, came here to contribute to an article, not to undermine the pretext of said article.

My point is this: I think everyone on this page is willing to agree with a core set of ideas which compose Islam. It naturally follows, then, that there can exist a core set of meta-ideas, if you will, which we might call Islamism. Having both definitions does not conflict.

To be sure, such an Islamist will speak of their meta-ideas through core Islamic ideas. This confusion is unavoidable, yet critical to the issue at hand, which is this: religion does not have picket fences, only horizons. Islamists say Muslims should set their fences only at the horizon. Not all Muslims feel they are called to build such fences - many believe it is wrong - especially when it may disrupt their neighbors. The use of force is secondary; the primary issue is the constitution of religion. Is it political, for example? Can a political fence be built on the horizon? Yes, there are such fences, and yes, they have no effect on where the horizon is. The Qur'an, for example, does speak of where we should build fences in respect to the horizon. But the Islamist assumes that the horizon is a place where fences can be built. --Vector4F 12:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Although we may disagree on some points on this article, by no means can anyone say you are not an intelligent person. Great thought provoking questions seem to be a hallmark of your contributions. "Essentialist Islam" does in fact exist but where we go wrong is to judge Muslims as being perfect followers (drones). In this sense, the arguments of Said still stand because accepting "essentialist Islam" does not necessarily mean that an "essentialist Muslim" exists. The only the way two of them could theoritically exist is if Islam had no grey areas but rather was presented as a bullet-style list of right and wrong. The mistake that we as Westerners make is blurring the lines of the concepts of "essentialist Islam," "essentialist Muslim," and human nature. Furthermore, we as humans try to explain and understand our observations through our own paradigms even when the implied meanings of those words do not accurately convey reality. I don't know if that made any sense but I'll elaborate on it later. As it stands, I have called up B&N to pick up a copy of "A Fundamental Fear." I should be done reading it by later tonight. Hopefully I can pick this up where I left off. (Time to get a user name.) 24.7.141.159 18:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Killer flaw

To whom it may concern:

This entire article is about Sunni teachings and ideologues - the word "Shi'a" is not even mentioned. Khomayni, Iran, shariati, Khatami, Hizbullah, SCIRI, MKO, Da'wa, the Rushdie affair, Muqtada al-Sadr, al-Sistani, Fadlallah, etc etc etc... it's not as if there isn't plenty of Shi'a islamism to write about. Arre 12:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we're are still figuring out what Islamism actually is rather than adding anyone we disagree with who also happens to be Muslim. I'm more than willing to hash out this discussion if you want to give a justification of why each of those groups qualifies under the banner of Islamism. Before you begin, please define Islamism so we are on the same page. 24.7.141.159 12:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I've long been aware and frustrated by this problem, which more or less highlights the dubious nature of the term "Islamism" as a coherent ideology. Correcting this, however, requires extensive work of the sort indicated by 24 (who should really get a username!) Graft 16:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Tags added April 4, 2006

This article seems to be have written from an anti-Islamic bias. The artcile refuses to explore the orginal root fro mwere the term, which many Muslims find to be offensive, came from. MuslimsofUmreka 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Islam is a religion that defines how Governments should fucntion. So from an Islamic perspective, it is purely Islam that governments function with Islamic law. The article makes no mention of that and purely calls it Islamism. Islam is more than a religion; it is a way of life, and governing factor. MuslimsofUmreka 18:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

MuslimsofUmreka is (are?) making the point he (they?) tried to make in the intro: Islamists sometimes object to the term not because it distorts their views or is pejorative per se, but because it implies that there can be an Islam which is not also Islamism. In the eyes of Islamists, secular government is merely shirk.

Islamism is coherent in the sense that any trans-national political movement is. Differences between instances do not invalidate the category. The category need not be coherent in the sense that a single party's ideology might be (or not), nor is it necessary that all factions are allied. See Communism. While there is nothing which strictly prevents large numbers of people from adopting absolutely inappropriate terminology, most often the currency of a term is proof of its utility.

Not that we shouldn't try to hammer out some working definitions.Timothy Usher 18:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

MuslimsofUmreka brings up many of the same points I've brought up above. Defining that political movement so it doesn't go against established belief systems in Islam is what is important. 24.7.141.159 19:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello MuslimsofUmreka. Clever name by the way (referring to Umreka). Anyway, I understand where you are coming from but I would urge you to read this talk page from top to bottom before making contributions. The reason behind this is very simply that you are walking into the land where terms are used as to negativly label and silence any legitimate discussion by Muslims. Your actions can be used by detractors of Islam to paint a very ugly picture of Muslims as can be seen in other Islam-related articles on Wikipedia talk pages. The issue is that when you come in and change around the article without discussion--right or wrong--people will resist the change. So engage the people here so we may all learn.

If you truly are Muslim then you must know that the story of Hassan and Hussein when they taught a man the proper way to do Wudu before prayer. Instead of pointing and laughing at him, they asked him why he was doing Wudu that particular way. Then, by example, Hassan and Hussein showed him how to do it properly. Had they told him how to do it, he may not have changed and continued in his ways. You can't expect people who aren't of the Islamic faith and raised in cultural homes to understand the contention behind terms like Islamism. The people on this talk page such as Kyaa, Graft, Vector4F, Raphael1 and others are all intelligent people who want to contribute and learn from each other as much as possible. Alienating them does more harm to your cause than good. Engage all of us after reading what has been said before so we can sort things out. 24.7.141.159 19:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

MuslimsofUmreka wrote, "Furthermore, Islam is a religion that defines how Governments should fucntion."

Does it? Even if we agree that we should have a Caliphate, what is the Islamic method for determining who the Caliph will be? As you probably know, this was a problem from the very beginning. Even if we agree that Sharia ought be the supreme law - one thing with which it seems all Islamists at least nominally agree - who decides which traditions are operative, and how they should be applied?Timothy Usher 20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you are just being ignorant. I would like you to point out passages in Islamic scripture that mandate only having a "caliphate." I'll give you 24 hours to pull the relavent pieces out of the Qur'an and present them. Barring that, I think your responses are borderline anti-Islamic and totally naive. I think that if you have something to say, then you can start to responding to the lengthy posts above that I have made. 24.7.141.159 03:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, very good points. I might add one more: "defines how Governments should fucntion" - ok, but where exactly does this apply? In any country which has a majority Muslim population? 51%? A significant minority? 5%? 1%? 0.1%? Within a hundred kilometers of at least one Muslim? On the whole planet? I'd really like to know. ObsidianOrder 22:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the term has roots that are not mentioned in the article. Muslims are just termed Muslims. Islamists, islamism, and other such terms take root from people who made tha tterm to make Muslim ideology seem as something evil. If Hip hop ideology were to be termed hip hopism, that would make no sense. The artcile needs to reflect the a racist roots of these terms and how they are designed to make people fear Islam. I will find published sources that are verifiable to back my statements up. MuslimsofUmreka 00:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am taking out this blatantly racist sentence,Many Islamists oppose the term, as it suggests their philosophy to be a political extrapolation from Islam rather than a straightforward expression of Islam as a way of life. added by Timothy Usher. I am replaceing it with the following, Muslims are opposed to the term islamism and islamist. The correct terms are Islam and Muslims.MuslimsofUmreka 01:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Even were it anti-Muslim, how would that be "racist"? Is Islam a race now? Anyhow, you misunderstand: we are not equating Islam and Islamism. You are. That's POV. Other Muslims state that they are not Islamists, or even that Islamism is a perversion of Islam. So, your POV edit need to go.Timothy Usher 03:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This articles first verifiable statement, cited from: http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Terms.htm "Islamism emerged in the late 1980s in French academe and then crossed into English, where it eventually displaced Islamic fundamentalism in specialized contexts...The term Islamism first appeared in French in the mid-eighteenth century. But it did not refer to the modern ideological use of Islam, which had not yet come into being. Rather, it was a synonym for the religion of the Muslims, which was then known in French as mahom�tisme, the religion professed and taught by the Prophet Muhammad." I am adding this too the article. MuslimsofUmreka 01:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Also I would like to request that Timothy Usher not edit any Islam related page. He seems to add unsourced anti-islamic slander into articles. This is not a KKK website, this is an encyclopedia. All information should be unbaised and be cited from a published source. MuslimsofUmreka 01:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Such as?Timothy Usher 03:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I also added new tags to article because it all seems to have been written from opinion and very little facts. The article also seems to have been written from an extremely anti-Islamic perspective. MuslimsofUmreka 01:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

MuslimsofUmreka, you cannot just copy and paste material from third party sources without quotations. It is unethical, a copyright violation and a violation of the rules of wikipedia.

Secondly, there may be some linguistic confusion at work here: English is not the same as French, much less French of the 18th Century. "Islamism/Islamist" *is not* synonymous with "Islam/Muslim", or it wouldn't have it's own article. See Islam for the religion called Islam.Timothy Usher 03:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I put quotation marks in there. If you look at the orginal post I made before it was edited, there were quotation marks which looked like the following "". They sorrounded the copy and pasted material. MuslimsofUmreka 03:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like you did. Can you now explain how the sentence you keep reverting is "racist"?Timothy Usher 03:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that the term Islamist has roots of spreading propaganda. I was born a Muslim and raised a Muslim. There are groups listed in their that I know people from personally. I know moderate Muslims and I have read a lot of books on Islam from all perspectives. I think I know what i'm talking about when I say that the term Islamism is a tool of propaganda to degrade Muslims. The article should reflect cited sources. I can give you a hundred sources for this article that can show were the root of this word came from and why it is used in correctly. There is no such thing as Islamic fundamentalism, only Islam. There is Islam and moderate Islam. The real Islam falls in with realm of what non muslims who are not familiar with Islam would refer to as Islamism. It is a term meant to make Islam look bad. The article reflects nothing about that. The article cites no sources and is one-sided. Views from all sides should be shown, with cited sources. MuslimsofUmreka 03:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you know what you are talking about. In fact, we use the term not to degrade Muslims, but to seperate the nutcases from the majority.

Ironically, the sentence you bizarrely call "racist" (you still haven't explained how Islam is a race) was an attempt to represent your POV. You claim that Islam requires a certain form of government, is an entire way of life, and that there can be no distinction between Islamism/Islamist and Islam/Muslim, even stating that the "correct term" for Islamism is merely Islam. So, if I say, Osama Bin Laden is an Islamist, you will say, no, he is a Muslim who is not moderate enough for my tastes? A "real Muslim"? Others disagree with your approach, and thus use this distinctive terminology.

Timothy Usher 03:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Its not about disagreeing or agreeing with me. Its about showing cited sources. As for Osoma Bin Laden, he is still a Muslim and not an islamist, though he may not be the best Muslim which would just be my speculation. Just as an american who goes overseas to war is an American not an Americanist. Majority of Muslims dont make such distinctions amongst themselves. Also, one who is Muslim and has had a lot more exposure to Islam can write this article better with cited sources. For example, would someone who lives in California be able to write an article on the New York City Subway system? If they tried, much off it would be speculation. One who rides the subway in NYC and knows were all the subway lines go and can back it up with proof with MTA maps can write an article on it really well. They can also know about construction or delays in the system with notices and by going to the MTA website. They are also more likely to listen to news reports regarding the subway system and are more likely to pay atention to newspaper articles regarding striks and such. They have more exposure to the subway and know more about scams that can get people free subway rides by using a metrocard trick. They can write an article on the NYC subway system with facts and not just speculation.

One who is Muslim has had much more exposure to this area and has paid attention to articles and books about the subject area and can easily cite those sources. They can also write a factual article and not just an article that is 90% speculation.

MuslimsofUmreka 04:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Just as an american who goes overseas to war is an American not an Americanist." Were there an ideology commonly called "Americanism" (as there easily could be), and this American promoted it, then he would be both.

Seems your real objection is with recent evolution of the English language.

I also take issue with your notion that other editors should defer to the opinions of Muslims on that basis alone.

But my biggest question remains, why do you claim that Islam is a race? Please explain.Timothy Usher 04:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Muslims are still a group of people. And any group of people can be discriminated against. Just as some people from a certain geographical area or a particular income amount me be subject to discrimination. Muslims are also subject to discrimination. Though race may not have been the best term to use, I should have used the word discriminatory remarks.

Editors shouldnt defer to anybody's opinion. They should base it all on fact. People who had more exposure to Islam can provide much more facts with actual sources. This is an encyclopeida were evrything is based on facts and verifiable statements. This isnt a personal opinion essay. Everything in the article is pure opinion and very few sources have been provided.

MuslimsofUmreka 04:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"And any group of people can be discriminated against."

As your avowed political philosophy discriminates against non-Muslims, it is difficult to feel too bad for your own feelings in this regard. You can put me on the record: I oppose political ideologies which entail discriminating against those of other religions. One such ideology is known as Islamism. If you want to say I’m discriminating against you and your Islamist cohorts, that’s fine.

Unless you'd agree with me now, that Jews, Christians and Hindus ought have all the same rights as Muslims, including in the Middle East? Including of proselytization, conversion, church-building, open worship, holding office, weapon ownership, taxation, etc.? And that whatever point of Sharia which contradicts this should be abolished?Timothy Usher 05:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that modern day empires in the Middle East represent Islam? Most Muslims don't believe that today but somehow you do. I find it interesting that a cursory glance at history shows Muslims have been very tolerant of other religions.

Between the 7th century and the 15th century, Islam extended from India to Spain. Within those borders were many different religious groups including Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc. Scheindlin writes (2000) that "Most of the Jews in the world were now inhabitants of a single Islamic empire stretching from the Indus River in the east to the Atlantic Ocean in the west, including Spain. This development brought the Jews of Palestine, Egypt, and Spain nearly instant relief from the persecutions, harassment, and humiliation that they endured under hostile Christian rule. It also brought them, for the first time since the beginning of the Diaspora, into a single cultural, economic, and political system. Both these new conditions would enable them to flourish and to create the most successful Jewish Diaspora community of premodern times." (Scheindlin, A Short History of the Jewish People Oxford University Press, 2000)

Jews prospered in all spheres from cultural to theological. Ever heard of the term "Ge'onim"? It describes the period under Islamic rule for Jews at "The Period of the Excellencies." Jews had their own schools in Iraq in the 10th century and Andelusia from the 11th-14th centuries where they refined their religious philosophies. Look up the term "Tor Ha-Zahav" if you need more information.

The funny thing that people like you seem to neglect to mention is that non-Muslims had very high positions in Islamic governments. A name that pops up is Maimonides. Heard of him? He was an extremely influential Jewish philosopher who also happened to be the chief physician of Saladin. Still not convinced? Look up the life histories of Ibn Ezra, Moses deLoen, and Judah Halevi as they all lived during this time period and all were non-Muslims living under Muslim rule.

Furthermore, if Muslims and Islam is so wrong then why were Jews establishing Rabbinical Academis in Iraq during the 9th and 10th centuries? Your hate for Islam and Muslims is illogical. While Europeans were murdering Jews left and right, Muslims protected them. You seem to want to use any example you can to put the religion down. As I said before, most of the empires and governments imposed upon Muslims are not of their own creation but rather put in place by Western powers. Unfortunately, in Wikipedia we go with facts, not just what feels right. 24.7.141.159 11:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

TOUCHE. Nicely said, Tim. I doubt you'll get a response to that one, though. ObsidianOrder 10:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you determine that these are Islamist ideologies? These are things that were revealed in the Quran. Muslims are told never to change their religion. And how do you determine that one follows Islamist ideology? The term Islamist has not even been defined properly in this article. Its all speculation with no sources. MuslimsofUmreka 10:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Then the proper defintion should be what I proposed above. Mainly, Islamist is any Muslim who harbors a political ideology not congruent with popular western thought. Vector4F said that he didn't agree with that definition completely but he wouldn't stand in the way of me editing it. Yet, I haven't touched it... yet. 24.7.141.159 04:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't quite work for me, though I agree that Islamist doctrines are not so congruent, that is not enough. For example, hereditary autocratic monarchies aren't congruent with popular western thought, yet we aren't calling Jordan's King Abdullah or the leaders of the Gulf States Islamist.Timothy Usher 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

ObsidianOrder erroneously labels me an Islamist

I'm growing very tired this attack by you to label anyone or anything that disagrees with him to be an Islamist (I'm even tempted to describe your actions as Islamophobic). In the course of academic, historical, and theological discussion the exploration of all points is necessary. I'm going to pick apart ObsidianOrders post and I hope that all editors and contributors take a stand against these sorts of tactics immediately.

you know absolutely nothing about me... you are obviously an Islamist

In the record of this talk page, it is pretty obvious that your contributions have been to label all Muslims and anyone that even remotely gives any legitimacy of the core teachings of Islam as a "deen" to be considered an Islamist. I have repeatedly asked you to tell me what authority you have to redefine Islam as a religion in the image of the Westernized practices of Christianity. Yet, you've avoided that topic. Instead, you call me an Islamist and continue on your tirade. Can a non-Muslim be an Islamist or is that term only reserved for Muslims? If anything, this proves the point that an Islamist is term thrown around and applied to:

1. anyone who harbors positive opinions of Islam. 2. anyone who rightly acknowledges and supports the core belief of Islam being a way of life (deen). 3. anyone who is willing to challenge the propaganda-based, and hence fact-devoid, notion that anyone using Islamic teachings in traditionally Western secular spheres to be an Islamist.

In the end, I am not an Islamist. I AM DEMANDING AN APOLOGY AND RETRACTION. I'm hoping you can civil about this so I don't have to escalate this issue.

Can we ask in what way you are considering escalating the issue? Do you mean like Mohammed Bouyeri? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, it's just important that other editors know what you're threatening so we can plan accordingly.Timothy Usher 05:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So you are now trying to slander me as a murderous editor? I'm appalled at the depths you are willing to sink to because you can't argue the facts. 24.7.141.159 05:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think on the one hand there are the Muslims who don't believe that (most of them), and then there are those who believe it (a small minority) and who would support whatever the local equivalent of the Taliban is.

First of all, what you think is of no concern. What matter is fact and reality. And what are you arguing for? Muslims believe that Islam is a deen and those who do not believe that are in the minority. Deen encompasses secular areas as well. Please refrain from molding Islam in your image. Doing so is a breach of WP policy and academic tradition.

Of course there is some overlap - your argument is that the overlap is 100%, and so there is no need for a distinction.

I don't think I've said that anywhere. Please quote where I have made that claim. As it stands, most of your post is nothing more than a clever attempt at railroading me into silence by putting words into my mouth. Luckily for us, Wikipedia maintains black-and-white text histories so its on you to show where I have made those claims. There is a very urgent need for distinction of this term because the definition, as it is now, unfairly labels a majority of Muslims to be Islamists. I have contributed an introduction above that I know to be very accurate of the notion of Islamism. That definition has a few votes in favor of it and the main editor here has said that he won't block the change.

Such a claim requires pretty strong evidence.

The evidence that Islam is a deen is in scripture and is considered common knowledge by Muslims and those of us who study Islam. I would suggest using Google to find Islamic scholarly sites that discuss these points. Unfortunately for you, many publications aren't in English and even more are only in book form. If you don't have the skill set to comment directly from sources then you have no business passing judgement on a religion or remolding it to fit whatever feels good to you.

I am addressing a particular point which I do not believe has been adequately settled: not all Islam is Islamist or political, despite your claims.

Where have I made that claim? Again, please show all of us where I have said that. I believe what I have said Islam is a deen and that we need to be very clear to distinguish Bhutto and Sharif from the Osamas. The fact it is a deen makes exploring politics under the umbrella of Islam a legitimate pursuit. Unfortunately, I do not agree with you is where you said above:

an Islamist is a Muslum who is unwilling to merely practice the "right" way of life themselves, and seeks to have Islam take over government...

Under that label, the majority of Iraqis who want Islam to be written into the Constitution must be Islamist. Under that label, all Pakistanis are Islamists. Under that label, Muslims in Malaysia and Indonesia are also Islamists. Quite frankly, any Muslim who wants Islam a part of government instead of the the Western idea that government should be secular is called an Islamist by you. As I have said numerous times before, you cannot redefine Islam from a Western view. Instead, provide all of us proof that Islam is only a secular religion from Islamic Scripture. Prove to all of us here that the concept of DEEN is just a fabrication.

Quite frankly, when I called you out on that statement above with your lackluster examples of nations that have supposedly secular governments, you backtracked. Then you proceeded to say this:

However, that every Muslim must be an Islamist is just your opinion, nothing more. No doubt a popular opninion among Islamists.

You've already wrongly called me an Islamist and then you do it again. Unfortunately, labeling me doesn't shut me up although this tactic has been used successfully by your ilk to silence American Muslims out of fear of persecution for their beliefs in their own country. You aren't here to have a discussion to make the article more representative, rather you are here to railroad Muslim wikipedians and any of us sympathetic to them to only believe your side of the story. I'm going to ask you again to provide me ample evidence to support your religious interpretation because as it stands it is nonsense.

In reference to Islamic political ideologies you said: I don't wish to do anything except describe them accurately. Whether people view them negatively as a result is not my problem. The sad part is you said accurately but in reality you seek to label Muslims and anyone who supports academic discourse on Islam. I await your apology. I am also expecting you to provide evidence from reputable sources to support your claims that Islam is a Sunday religion with no concept of deen. 24.7.141.159 04:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"In the record of this talk page, it is pretty obvious that your contributions have been to label all Muslims and anyone that even remotely gives any legitimacy of the core teachings of Islam as a "deen" to be considered an Islamist."

MuslimsofUmreka is saying precisely this. Will you be so kind as to rebuke him likewise?

I continue to be baffled by the both of your positions. On the one hand, you are saying, all true Muslims are what we call "Islamists" in the sense of seeing Islam as a way of life, including government (though no one has answered my question about succession - I guess by assasination, as per Umar, Uthman and Ali...maybe even Muhammad?), then you claim deep offense that we label you Islamists!

So, another question: in your mind, what is Islamism, and how do your opinions differ from it? Timothy Usher 04:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This is my definition of Islamism. If you had read above, you'd also see that there is support for this statement:

Islamism refers to any political Muslim movement perceived to harbor anti-secular and, consequently, anti-Western political ideologies derived from fundamentalist interpretations of the religion of Islam. Muslims generally assert that Islam, as both a religion and a social system (Deen), should be practiced as a philosophy by the government. Many Muslims advocate a theocratic political system that can implement legal, economic and social policies in accordance with certain interpretations of Islamic law. The term Islamism is a means to define any group of Muslims that stray from widely held customs and traditions of European populations. The use of this term is typically considered a form of triumphalism.

You didn't answer the second part of the question. You are claiming offense at being called an Islamist, but will not say how you are not one, ever under your own definition (which I reject). The notion that "Islam, as both a religion and a social system (Deen),{ should be the philosophy of the government itself "stray[s] from widely held customs and traditions of European populations." Since you say that Muslims generally asserts this, you claim by your own definition that most Muslims are Islamists. Yet say that you are not one. No more running in circles: how do your opinions differ with your own definition of Islamism?Timothy Usher 05:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing my comments. Thank you.

You are claiming offense at being called an Islamist, but will not say how you are not one

I'm not claiming to be offended, I am offended. Secondly, I cannot prove a negative but I'm going to ask you again to refrain from labeling me an Islamist. If you cannot respect this then I will ask an Administrator or the Mediation Cabel to step in. Slander, whether electronic, has consequences in civil society and I'm willing to pursue those avenues.

You cannot use formatting to make your comments appear more important then other comments on the page. It is like writing in all caps.

Vector4F and I have highlighted our potential changes to the intro above. DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENTS AGAIN. 24.7.141.159 06:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

“Secondly, I cannot prove a negative but I'm going to ask you again to refrain from labeling me an Islamist.”

I did not label you an Islamist. I asked you if you are, even accepting your own definition for the purpose of the question, and you refuse to answer.

Then I hope you'll be retracting your implication of labeling me Islamist and also standing against ObsidianOrder. Without that, you're just be disingenuous. I look forward to a retraction and admonishment of any editor who takes ObsidianOrder's position of labeling other editiors. 24.7.141.159 06:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I retract nothing. Prompted by your strident complaints and threats to ObsidianOrder, I asked you a direct question which you've not answered. If you are going to run around saying, "how dare ObsidianOrder say I support X", the least you could do for your case is to state that you don't support X. As per your own definition, naturally.Timothy Usher 06:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's too bad you aren't retracted but you're backing down which is a positive sign. Do you support labeling editors? Your line of reasoning is implying that you do. This position is in violation of Wikipedia:Civility and WP:WPA. As I understand it, Wikipedia takes a very strong stand against people who do those things. Also, what part of I am not an Islamist (as written above) do you not understand? The biggest error in your thinking is to assume my choice of religion. Think about it for a second. Lastly, Islamism's definition has nothing to do with an unwarrented personal attack on me. It is in the best interest of this article and your participation of this community to retract your statements and move on. 24.7.141.159 06:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said you were an Islamist, though admittedly by this time it seems rather likely. You are right, it shouldn't have anything to do with wikipedia, anymore than you being a Muslim does, as per your request for deference from non-Muslim editors. I asked, given *your pet definition* of Islamist, as you've highlighted above, how do your opinions differ from it, such that you are not an Islamist? I would never have asked, except that you were running around threatening another editor for calling you one. Then noticed that your definitions of Islam and of Islamism, respectively, suggested that all Muslims are Islamists by virtue of Islam as Din. So am trying to figure out if ObsidianOrder had a point, or if you did. You've not much helped your case thusfar. And you've still not answered this direct, prompted question.Timothy Usher 07:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be rather stubborn in your responses.

I never said you were an Islamist, though admittedly by this time it seems rather likely.

I'm glad you recognize that I'm not an Islamist, however the second fragment makes you sound like a sore loser. Just admit you were wrong and back down.

anymore than you being a Muslim does, as per your request for deference from non-Muslim editors.

So now you're claiming I'm a Muslim? Interesting. Isn't it clear to you yet that making assumptions leads you to getting yourself in trouble? Its funny how people automatically assume that supporting Islam and admonishing non-Muslims would somehow automatically make me Muslim. Ask yourself something, when some speaks out against Americans supporting the way, does that automatically make them non-American? Your logic is rooted in assumption and your assumption is wrong.

how do your opinions differ from it, such that you are not an Islamist? I would never have asked, except that you were running around threatening another editor for calling you one.

Again, whatever my opinions are is irrelavent to the article itself. What I do know is that labeling anyone on Wikipedia goes against policy and labeling me an Islamist is a smear tactic rooted in falsehood. If ObsidianBlack and you are not willing to back down from slandering me, then I am well within my right to take action against either one of you.

... suggested that all Muslims are Islamists by virtue of Islam as Din.

Hence why I am here to edit this article. Islam is a Din and you not provided any evidence from scripture to disagree with that statement even though I have asked you before. Furthermore, by you attempting to draw a verdict on my supposed Islamist-ness only serves to prove how this term is used incorrectly. Have you heard of Godwin's Law? The eventual implication of that Law is that ... whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. Islamism/Islamist will need to be added as a term that could replace Nazi in Godwin's Law because the use of the it is quickly heading down the same road.

You've not much helped your case thusfar. And you've still not answered this direct, prompted question.

1. I'm still waiting for you to back up your false claims that I called anyone a racist.

2. I'm waiting for you to tell me where I used legal threats beyond going to Wikipedia's mediation cabal.

3. I'm waiting for you to provide evidence as to how Islam is not a Din.

4. I'm waiting for you to apologize for your personal attack on me by supporting ObsidianBlack's claims.

5. I'm waiting for you to provide evidence that Bukhari's hadith is a "lie."

6. I'm waiting for you to give us an introduction that you like.

1. This has already been discussed, as you know. You are not writing in good faith. The culprit here is MuslimsofUmreka as discussed and agreed.

2. I've already provided the quote, as you know. Which you wrote to begin with, as you also know.

3. Never said it wasn't. Please use English terms where possible: this is an English-language page.

4. There is no user ObsidianBlack in this discussion. What are you trying to say by changing his name?

I never supported his claims. However, I totally oppose your approach to him.

5. I didn't say Bukhari's hadith is a lie. Aisha probably did say that. Though of course neither of us can possibly have any evidence on either count.

6. May do so if I feel like it, but it's not my obligation.

I've answered your six new questions, but you are still incapable of answering the original question: assuming your definition of Islamism, how do your own opinions differ?

Timothy Usher 09:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Timothy Usher has been [editing comments] critical of his position as written below. I've reinserted these here after he removed them.

1. You're not in any position to be lecturing me on good faith.

2. I don't see a quote, nor do I ever recall making a legal threat. The very fact you can't post the quote proves that you are not only not writing in good faith but as a very quick to make things up.

3. Please save your arrogance for someone who actually cares. The term is "Din" and is listed in the English Wikipedia as such. I see that you are trying to dig deeper into desperation as your house of cards is crashing down.

4. That would be a brain fart on my part. You wanting to chastise me for it, however, is a hallmark of your rather weak position. Grasping at straws certainly is entertaining.

5. Oh? Below you wrote in reference to Bukharis narration of the poisoning of Muhammad and concluded that it's probably a lie..." Now are you saying you didn't write now? I only see one possibility here: you've been caught fabricating again and need a way out. You've made stuff up and claimed I wrote it yet the record of this talk page shows that I never said anything of the sort. With that said, I don't put it beyond you to fabricate ideas in regards to Bukhari either. Are you conceding again that you are wrong? Yes? If so, good. I'm glad.

6. Then what is your obligation? It seems like uncivilized discourse is your only obligation here so far. Unfortunately that is very sad. I would suggest taking a WikiBreak and coming back later when you've cooled down. You've already shot your reputation to hell here and you need to start fixing the mess you've made here. I'm willing to help as long you can proporly answer the above six questions in a meaningful way. Good luck. 24.7.141.159 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually you haven't answered my questions. By the way, since it is my definition of Islamism, my opinions about Islamism don't differ from it. If they did, then I'd provide a new definition for discussion. 24.7.141.159 10:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What you have succeeded at so far is providing a lot of irrelavent personal attacks that have contributed nothing towards defining the term. The sad part is that as that I've asked you to do this over and over again yet each time I smash another one of your false claims, you come up with a few more new ones. This doesn't show very well on you at all. 24.7.141.159 08:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

“Slander, whether electronic, has consequences in civil society and I'm willing to pursue those avenues.”

Wikipedia:No_legal_threats But more saliently, how can one slander an anonymous IP address?Timothy Usher 05:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's simple, follow WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Civility so we won't have a problem. If you continue to ignore it then I will pursue a resolution as outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. 24.7.141.159 06:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

your own definition (which I reject)

Whether you reject it or not doesn't matter. The only option you have is to write a line-by-line critique showing all of us where you disagree and why. Also, its very difficult to understand your roundabout logic. Either provide a coherent argument devoid of personal attacks of me or quiet down. It's very simple. 24.7.141.159 05:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

MuslimsofUmreka is saying precisely this. Will you be so kind as to rebuke him likewise?

MuslimsofUmreka is saying that you can't label all Muslims Islamists based solely on political ideology because the deen component of Islam mandates its use political discourse. ObsidianOrder, wants to ignore this fact and blanketly label Muslims as Islamists because they apply religion in traditional Western enclaves of economics and politics. So I can't rebuke him on that.

I continue to be baffled by the both of your positions.

I've laid out my argument quite clearly. However, if you don't understand then I'm willing to discuss further.

you are saying, all true Muslims are what we call "Islamists" in the sense of seeing Islam as a way of life, including government

Islam is a deen (also spelled Din). There is ample evidence in scripture to support this. There are Wikipedia articles on this as well. You cannot redefine Islam via Western theological paradigms. Any attempt to do that will be met with disagreement by me and numerous scholars over the past 1,400 years.

no one has answered my question about succession

What does succession have anything to do with the topic of Islamism? It is more likely that the discussion of succession is a red-herring. Regardless, in Muslim history of governance succession wasn't always considered or used a legitmate means to pick the next leader. There are volumes written on this topic by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars so I urge you to read up on that in your own time. As it stands, succession has no bearing on this article.

I guess by assasination, as per Umar, Uthman and Ali...maybe even Muhammad?

Muhammad was not assassinated although attempts were made on his life by the Quresh of Arabia. I certainly hope you knew this very basic fact because it doesn't actual give me much comfort knowing that other (very vocal) editors do not have a grasp of this necessary knowledge.

I have no opinion on this, but one tradition has it that a Jewish woman from Khaybar poisoned his meat. You should learn more about Islamic history. Though it's probably a lie, at least you would have heard of it.Timothy Usher 05:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User:24.7.141.159 this should prove a salve for your ignorance:

Bukhari 5:59:551: “Narrated Abu Huraira: When Khaibar was conquered, a (cooked) sheep containing poison, was given as a present to Allah's Apostle.” [[14]]

Bukhari 5:59:713: “Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." [[15]]

Please sign your comments appropriately. I also don't know what you quoting Bukhari achieves. In my original posting I wrote: Muhammad was not assassinated although attempts were made on his life by the Quresh of Arabia. Everyone can see what I wrote above yet you haven't seemed to disproven it but instead you confirmed it. Assassinate means "to kill someone..." and Muhammad was not killed due to assassination. This can be confirmed from hundreads of works published on his life over the past 1,400 years and on Wikipedia. Furthermore, you go on to make a claim that Bukhari's narration is probably a lie. Can you provide evidence of this statement is a lie or are you questioning the integrity of Bukhari now? I still don't understand what you achieved other than to prove my initial statement to be true: Muhammad was not assassinated and attempts were made on his life. Again, I'm going to ask you to remain civil as listed in Wikipedia:Civility and adhere to WP:NPA. Are we going to be seeing a line-by-line refutation with cited sources of my proposed introduction soon? As it stands, a majority still either support or have no desire to block it from taking over. Also, when can I expect an apology from you for erroneously implying the Islamist comment? I'm greatful that you see the error in your actions on this page. It gives me another reason to cheer for Wikipedia and its community. Thanks for being a great member. 24.7.141.159 06:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean with an anonymous IP address? In case you can't parse this properly, Aisha is saying in 5:59:713 that Muhammad attributed the illness from which he died to the poisoning

You can never expect an apology from me for once again asking you this question: assuming the definition of islamism which you've given above (which I reject), how do your own opinions differ from it?

No, you do not have a majority. Count.

And you cannot feign civility while demanding apologies, evading direct questions, threatening legal action, calling people racists, etc.Timothy Usher 06:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is ironic that you would cite a Hadith that many non-Muslims use to prove to themselves that Muhammad was a fake. The act of poisoning is on most anti-Islam websites and even a Bible Wiki. I would ask that you please provide citations from the major works on Prophet Muhammad's life that conclude he was confirmed to be assassinated. Barring that, you can't make such a claim. There is a stringent requirement within Muslims on how to authenticate Hadith because the Hadith, unlike the Qur'an, is believed to have occassional errors in reporting since it is the construct of fallable humans.

threatening legal action, calling people racists

Please show all of us where I threatened legal action unless going to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation for violations of WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Civility constitutes a legal threat (which it can't). Also, please show me where I called anyone a racist. It sounds like your case is just falling apart because you're making up things now. 24.7.141.159 07:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I forgot to cut and paste this into my response. Interesting, Shih Muslim mentions this:

A Jewess from Khaibar had put poison in the Prophet's (pbuh) food. He spat it out after taking a morsel but a disciple who had his fill died the next day. The Jewess was brought before the prophet (pbuh) who questioned her:

"Why did you do this?" "To kill you," was her defiant reply. She was told, "Allah would not have allowed you to do it." (Muslim, Sahih Muslim.)

In other words, the Prophet lived to talk about it and actually questioned the woman who did it. As I said earlier, we need your sources on the table to prove Muhammad was assassinated because I have proven my earlier statement that the Hadith is not always infallable. I'm still waiting for you to show where I called anyone a racist and where I supposedly threatened legal action. 24.7.141.159 07:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Please show all of us where I threatened legal action"...

You wrote, "Slander, whether electronic, has consequences in civil society and I'm willing to pursue those avenues." However, I apologize for this: it was MuslimsofUmreka who called people racists. Although you've clearly no interest in rebuking his comments, it was not you who said it. You have additionally demanded apologies from people OR ELSE while evading this very direct question: assuming your own pet definition of Islamism, how do your own opinions differ from it, such that you are not an Islamist?Timothy Usher 07:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not my job to rebuke another editors comments. If you have treated him in any manner similar to how you've treated me, then I can understand that particular editor's stance. Although I'm glad you finally admit that I've never called anyone a racist or threatened legal action.

Uh-uh-uh..."slander" has no status in wiki rules. Your sentence suggested legal action. If you've backed down, that's great. Hallelujah.Timothy Usher 09:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It falls under Wikipedia:Civility and WP:NPA. So before you said I threatened legal action and now you've turned it around to me "suggesting" legal action. Right, as I have written before about your methods of fabrication and you're doing it again. I'm glad you've apologized. It shows that you are making progress. 24.7.141.159 11:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you're hung up on my supposed Islamist-ness. My personal beliefs are of no issue beyond my stance that I am not an Islamist. Quite frankly, in addition to my statement of not being an Islamist, my definition, proposed definitions and current definition make it literally impossible for me to be an Islamist. Whether you desire to understand that or not is up to you. Now tell me something more relavent, why are you trying to label all Muslims as Islamists by supporting the current definition? What did Muslims ever do to you that makes labeling a core belief in "DIN" an automatic entitlement for people like you to label them Islamists? Provide me evidence from scripture that proves Islam has no concept of "DIN". You won't be able to and therefore you'll have to concede this point if you want to have any legitimacy left on Wikipedia. 24.7.141.159 08:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I never contested that Islam in the form taught and practiced by Muhammad supports Islamism. But I am also willing to accept that many or most Muslims don't wish to live in a state of constant warfare, and if papering over the original practices is needed, I'm not about to challenge them. So far as I can see, you are the one asserting that all Muslims are Islamists by saying that all must, as a matter of faith, reject prevailing western views of secular government. That is in practice untrue, I know several Muslims who accept Western government as an advance, compared to the madness of the "rightly guided caliphs", they are not Islamists. But your comments suggest they reject the belief in din and are thus not true Muslims. Again, I don't presume to deny that Qur'an and Hadith mandate political Islam. From one POV, Islamism can be defined as a return to the original traditions in this regard, and indeed isn't that precisely what Salafis say they are doing? I hold that contemporary Islam, original Islam, and contemporary Islamism are three interrelated but distinct things.Timothy Usher 09:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so now you honestly want me to take your seriously when you juxtapose Muhammad's original teaching on one hand to being in a constant state of war on the other? The two concepts are mutually exclusive. You comment is about as silly as it comes. I think you are grasping at straws now. Let's see where your response leads us.

you are the one asserting that all Muslims are Islamists

Actually I'm here to change the current ambiguous definition which directly says what you wrote. Furthermore, Obsidian's response below futher supports how both of you are trying to redefine Islam in your own image. Let's call Islamism what it is: a western view put onto anyone who happens to be Muslim. It was pretty obvious that you kept calling me an Islamist until you learned my real faith and now you can't. It is so sad that you are becoming desperate in your responses.

all must, as a matter of faith, reject prevailing western views of secular government

Fabrication. I never said that. If I have, then paste the quote. Otherwise I can say that your nose is growing, fabricator.

I know several Muslims who accept Western government as an advance...

Who you know is irrelavent. I know quite a few people who say the world is flat, does that mean the world is now obviously flat? No. This is why we have standards in place for academic and judicial discourse. You should try to insert that comment into an academic paper or in testimony in court and wait to see how quickly you are run out of town. Again you are grasping for straws.

comments suggest they reject the belief in din and are thus not true Muslims

Wrong again. I have never passed judgements on Muslims. Furthermore, an opinion on government is a very small piece of the puzzle that comprises "Din." By the way, didn't you lecture me above to use English terms yet you are using Din yourself? Regardless, you would know what "Din" is if you actually knew about Islam but as it stands your responses don't lead me to believe you have any deep understanding.

I don't presume to deny that Qur'an and Hadith mandate political Islam

Okay that is good. The ironic thing is that once Muslim chooses to follow those mandates, he or she is automatically an Islamist. The fact that you can tell a Muslim what he can or cannot follow out of his scripture is arrogant beyond belief.

Islamism can be defined as a return to the original traditions in this regard

No it can't. That would be called fundamentalism, not Islamism. Get your terms straight. 24.7.141.159 11:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As for Hadith, I agree they are hardly infallible. In fact I'll go a step further and say no human being, prophet or otherwise, is infallible, and that whatever words God's angels recite to him will be adulterated by the time of their recital due to this fallibility. You asked why I though those sayings are lies. Though it is obvious enough that Muhammad was capable of lying, I do not think he is the problem here. Nor have I any reason to think Bukhari generally unreliable (first you acted offended at this perceived suggestion of Bukhari-unreliability, now that you see what's being said, you are alleging it yourself!) I rather suspect Aisha is the problem here.Timothy Usher 07:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for suggesting that it is obvious enough that Muhammad was capable of lying. Using human nature doesn't qualify as evidence but rahter providing a historical event will do nicely. You can add this to the list of things you have to provide evidence for. Even what I ask you to PROVE that Bukhari is lying, you cannot give me any hard evidence other than to move to blame to Aisha. By the way, I was never offended at your suggestion but said in my original reply that Hadith are unreliable on which you agreed. Stop putting words into my mouth because it is becoming old and tiresome. 24.7.141.159 08:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And once again, assuming your own pet definition of Islamism, how do your own opinions differ from it, such that you are not an Islamist? This was the issue to begin with between you and ObsidianOrder. This is what launched you on your ballistic trajectory. Time to answer.Timothy Usher 07:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What does my position on being an Islamist have anything to do with the article? It's time for you to answer. It seems like you keep coming back to this red herring because you have nothing of substance to contribute here. I made a list of things I am waiting for from you above. Those items are largely concerned with you providing evidence of your claims. Whether you or I or anyone else are Islamists or not is irrelavent. All I know is that it is literally impossible for me to be Islamist and maybe my Catholic upbringing can vouch for that. Let me know how stupid you feel right now because I'm cracking up. 24.7.141.159 08:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It matters only because you wrote to another user: In the end, I am not an Islamist. I AM DEMANDING AN APOLOGY AND RETRACTION. I'm hoping you can civil about this so I don't have to escalate this issue. You also falsely claimed I'd called you an Islamist. So whether or not you are is relevant to judge your claim of "slander". Since you are an anonymous user, I place little stock upon what you say about your background, but note again that you are incapable of answering a direct question.Timothy Usher 08:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. What you meant to say is when you are single-handedly proven wrong, the only way to save face is to claim that since I am an anonymous user that you place little stock upon what you say about your background. The reason behind you doing this is that I took away your only weapon: labeling me an Islamist. Now you have to argue with me on valid points and thusfar you haven't done so well. Every one of your fabrications has been revealed and your reputation has taken a hit on Wikipedia. You even sunk as far down as to compare me to a murderer. No wonder Muslim wikipedians don't bother with people of your ilk. 24.7.141.159 11:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

then you claim deep offense that we label you Islamists!

Are you labeling me an Islamist too? I certainly hope not. Do you want me to include your username as well if I deem it necessary to escalate this issue? 24.7.141.159 05:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you several times, and you won't answer. As for my username, I gave you permission to remember it when I posted.

"Regardless, in Muslim history of governance succession wasn't always considered or used a legitmate means to pick the next leader."

Your statement here makes no sense. I think what you may be trying to say is that there is no agreed-upon method of determining succession. If so, you are right: the only system of government upon which all Islamist agree is the dictatorship of Muhammad himself. Abu Bakr forward, it's all disputed. Since Muhammad isn't around, and the Mahdi is held up in traffic, that leaves Islamism without an answer for one of the most fundamental political questions.Timothy Usher 05:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What this has to do with Islamism and trying to slander my name is still beyond me. The tone of your response shows your true colors. It's time you provide us with a line-by-line critique otherwise you are quickly becoming a non-factor in this discussion. I look forward to something of substance soon from you. 24.7.141.159 05:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear 24 - indeed, I have no reason to assume you are Muslim or Islamist. Based on everythin you've said, you are obviously Islamist-sympathetic, but there is no reason to assume you actually are Islamist. I will apologize for my unfounded assumption if it upset you - when you apologize for, well, all the even more unfounded statements you made about me before I said that ;) To pick a few: "completely clueless", "ignorant and uninformed", "You are a person who shares in the Western belief system", "For you, religion is generally a Sunday affair", "you have an agenda to paint Islamic political ideologies in a negative light"... Seeing how you actually have no idea what country I am in now, what country(ies) I grew up in, and what religion I believe... that is pretty presumptuous, isn't it? That is what I was responding to when I said (and let's give the full quote here) "If we're throwing ad-hominem attacks I might say you are obviosuly an Islamist". That's if and might. Ok, so it was a case of WP:POINT, and I probably shouldn't have said it, but it seems to have hit a bit of a sore spot, hasn't it?

In any case, I am rather perplexed. You said: "Muslims generally assert that Islam, as both a religion and a social system, should be practiced as a philosophy by the government". But that is Islamism in the modern meaning of the word - I gave tons of examples of such usage above. Therefore you are saying that all (most, whatever) Muslims are Islamist - unless you also redefine "Islamist" to mean something completely different from what it means to everyone else. If you believe Islamism is simply an inherent part of Islam, why are you offended? ObsidianOrder 09:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

To answer a few things point by point:

Where have I made that claim? Again, please show all of us where I have said that. I believe what I have said Islam is a deen and ... - you said, "Muslims generally assert that Islam, as both a religion and a social system (Deen), should be practiced as a philosophy by the government". That, based on a number of examples I gave, is practically a dictionary definition of the meaning of the word "Islamism" in modern usage. So, again, unless you redefine Islamism to mean something else at the same time, you just said that "Muslims generally are Islamist".

unfairly labels a majority of Muslims to be Islamists - according to you a majority of Muslims are Islamist. how is that unfair labelling?

evidence that Islam is a deen is in scripture - no doubt; but I question how many people actually believe that strongly enough to put it into practice. That is why I asked for votes and similar, not scripture. There are plenty of things in Christian scripture that a majority of Christians would vote against in a millisecond (all shellfish should be illegal, I'm sure you can think of other examples as well).

The fact it is a deen makes exploring politics under the umbrella of Islam a legitimate pursuit. - whether Islamism is legitimate or not has no bearing whatever on the definition of Islamism.

Iraqis who want Islam to be written into the Constitution must be Islamist - yes, that is correct, although it is a weak form of Islamism, more as a symbolic gesture.

any Muslim who wants Islam a part of government instead of the the Western idea that government should be secular is called an Islamist by you - yes, also correct (although secularism is a very popular idea, and not only in the West).

to silence American Muslims out of fear of persecution for their beliefs - this requires a somewhat longer response. Even in an extremely tolerant society such as the USA, some philosophies are ostrachized, and with very good reason: for example, KKK, Nazis, etc etc. What do these have in common? Very simple, they preach anti-tolerance - according to them there is only one right way, and everyone else just has to be forced to follow that. This is the one thing that even the most tolerant society cannot tolerate without being destroyed. Such philosophies also usually preach incitement of violence against specific ethnic or religious groups. The question is, is Islamism one of those philosophies? You can answer that better than I. Further: the USA is so amazingly tolerant that none of these philosophies are actually illegal in themselves, as long as their adherents do not try to put them into practice. If they do, they break a number of ordinary criminal laws and typically go to jail because of that (let's just say, try and practice Sharia, I'd like to see you try to stone an adulteress in public in the USA). I don't think that even-handed enforcement of criminal law can remotely be described as persecution. I think it extremely unlikely for there to be any state persecution of Muslims in the USA in the forseeable future. Public ostrachism may or may not become common, depending on what views the Muslim community expresses and follows.

in reality you seek to label Muslims - as what? Islamists? I don't think most Muslims are Islamist; you do, you said so (except you didn't use a label, you merely described what the label/term means).

support your religious interpretation - it is not an interpretation, it is a sense that most Muslims tend not to take any interpretation too seriously, and tend to follow their own interpretation tempered with a considerable amount of common sense.

to support your claims that Islam is a Sunday religion - I don't have a particularly good source, other than people I've talked to. Do you have a source for the opposite, other than scripture? ObsidianOrder 10:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'm not going to argue particulars because I've already written about every point you've commented on. If you take the response you've given, you can find that the conclusions you've come are the very reason this article requires the definition to be altered. As it stands, your position is that any Muslim following scripture is technically an Islamist and puts them in the same boat as Osama bin Laden and others. It also suggests that Islam fundamentally breads terrorists unless they accept Western conventions on the separation of Church and State. You also suggest that any Muslim that isn't an Islamist is probably doing so because they using a considerable amount of common sense which is an ultimately very arrogant and Orientalist prespective on the Muslim world. This is an attempt to redefine Islam in the image of Christianity. In the end, your stance has very far reaching consequences that cannot be condoned by anyone--Muslim or not. It goes to show that the very fears I have spoken to at length on this page are very real and I would continue to pursue the cause to be sure we don't malign Muslims following basic tenants of their faith. 24.7.141.159 10:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Ostracism is a form of persecution and we don't want the persecution of Muslims (do we?), I suggest to narrow the term Islamist to those who preach anti-tolerance and violence. Since Islamists are ostracized like Nazis and the KKK, we don't want to label Muslims. who consider Islam as both a religion and a social system (Deen), Islamists. Raphael1 13:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)