Talk:Islamism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Islamic fundamentalism

I've moved the discussion here, as the previous section was getting visually confusing. The relevant part of Islamic fundamentalism reads as follows:

• It describes the beliefs of traditional Muslims; that they should restrict themselves to literal and traditional interpretations of their sacred texts, the Qur'an and Sunnah (since they view these as "fundamental" to Islam). By extension, fundamentalism may include a variety of religious movements and groups in Muslim communities which may be entirely apolitical. An example is the Tablighi Jamaat, a missionary-like organization whose main goal is to increase the personal piety of its members. Islamic fundamentalism thus describes an Islamic conservatism which forms part of the spectrum of modern Islamic societies.

• It describes Muslim groups which advocate Islamism and the replacement of secular state laws with Islamic law, also known as Shari'a.

There is no problem here vis-a-vis the Islamism definition, as fundamentalism is presented as a more general term which includes a focus on personal practice rather than political ideology. Islamic fundamentalism is said here to *describe* Islamism (among other things), not to *be defined by* it. Those are logically inverse concepts: if A describes B, B can (at least in part) be defined by A. The sentence "Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from Islamic fundamentalism" could perhaps be profitably rephrased but makes perfect logical sense.Timothy Usher 01:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You have skipped the first sentence of the Islamic fundamentalism article, which reads: "The term Islamic fundamentalism is primarily used in the United States, Europe, and Australia to describe Islamist groups." which doesn't make sense if "Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from Islamic fundamentalism." Raphael1 02:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I did. It wasn't deliberate. Though there's certainly much that can be improved in Islamism - critics have focussed on the introduction and definitions etc., when as Aminz pointed out, there's a large article beneath this which needs vetting - Islamic fundamentalism is a bloody mess, and confusing (it's Islamism, it's not Islamism, but sometimes it's Islamism...).Timothy Usher 05:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree, that article is a mess. Perhaps we should just merge it with this one and note that it was the predecessor term for Islamism. Armon 05:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kramer's article [here], the current definition of "Islamism" started out as a way of avoiding the term "Islamic Fundamentalism" just as we're now seeing a push to use the term "political Islam" instead of "Islamism". In any case, your concern that "Islamist" should only be applied to violent movements doesn't work because, a) Islamism is a political philosophy NOT a methodology and b) there is copious evidence to show that the term is applied to groups based their political philosophy -regardless of whether they are "violent". For example, the FIS was an Islamic movement/political party long before the Algerian government cancelled the elections they would have won. See also: [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]. Your other point of concern is that the definition "equates strict followers of Islam, who see their religion as Deen, with terrorists" -if they share the same political philosophy, differing only in their methods in achieving it, then they are Islamists. Think of communists -some are revolutionary, some use the political process. Armon 05:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't resist to chime in here: My rule of thumb in distinguishing and labeling movements as 'islamist' or 'fundamentalist' has been this: Like atheist and agnostic, which are similarly often confused in public discourse, one can be:

• a) Islamist fundamentalist (IF)
• b) Islamist non-fundamentalist (InF)
• c) Non-Islamist fundamentalist (nIF)
• d) Non-Islamist non-fundamentalist (nInF)

But first, 3 more concepts:

• the (secular, more or less) modernists (M)
• the mainstream religious establishments, usually under the umbrella of the state (E)
• the (tribal, archaic, custom-based) traditionalists (T)

E (usually nInF initially) will frequently pool with M to fight back T, the underlying default scenario in much of the muslim world. (development model). If E and M are relatively successful in fighting T, T may turn into nIF to immunize themselves against further onslaught, by seeking the protection of the nInF E. If M's project is frustrated, parts of M may turn into InF, abandoning M, and try short-circuiting nInF to become the new E. Thus, nIF is a protective move by T against M and E. InF is a secondary tactic of frustrated M, designed to make themselves the new E. InF will (when it is not yet E itself) frequently try to enlist the help (in overthrowing the old E) of T by posturing as, or becoming IF, thereby turning T into IF (where T was nIF before). Simultaneously, to defend themselves against a potential InF/IF alliance, the nInF E will try to ally themselves with T by turning nIF, or with InF by becoming InF themselves, thus turning E against M in both cases.

Again, in a nutshell:

• Fundamentalism (nIF) is a defensive movement against an encroaching state or elite. It wants the "Deutungshoheit" - the power of interpretation - of morals, customs and laws (including, but not resticted to Islam itself) removed from the elite, and put back into the hand of of smaller, self-regulated, traditional entities. As such it is often, but not necessarily "more reactionary/islamic/whatever" than the interpretation of the elite, but it is almost always simpler (because it is more literal and less elaborate). It is instinctively anti-modern.
• Islamism (InF) is the offensive movement of a frustrated, powerless elite against the incumbent elite, which it tries to replace. Disenchanted with the project of modernity (either as such, or by its diappointing results) it seeks restauration of a (semi-imaginened) glorious, more Islamic past, and then a take-off from there, which makes it, ironically, a very modern movement.
• An Islamist fundamentalist (IF) movement marries the modern, revolutionaly zeal to overthrow the old elite with the anti-modern instinct to stop once it's done, which makes it a hybrid creature: Once the new elite has had its revolution into the past, it's supposed to step down and dissolve. The take-off plan into the future is cancelled.

I admit thas this may be a bit 80s and 90s slang, but I've been 'out of the loop' for a while, and definitions may have shifted in the meantime. But the above will be widely recognizable for anybody familiar with (European) ME studies at the time.

ALL of the 4 flavours a)-d) above of course ultimately envision unity of state and Islam. There just is no "render untu Cesar..." in Islam. The nInF faction of course, is only muted in this regard. To remain part of the elite, they have to accept the powers-that-be, and sing to their tune. In a nIF (and a successful IF) system the state more or less disappears, so that the traditional actors will hold both secular and rudimental religious powers. In an InF system, the new elite will hold both powers, or will - more realistically - employ the old religious E to continue elaborately safeguarding the religious sphere according to the new framework.

ALL of the 4 flavours a)-d) above have at times engaged in violence against opponents (as has basically every group you care to mention - e.g. vegetarians) but none of them can be defined by doing or not doing so, because all of them could conceiveably continue to exist as the discernible groups they are, without ever engaging in violence again.

I don't mean all this as a piece of original research. Rather, if you look at a broad spectrum of literature on the subject (like the Chicago Fundamentalism Project and other major players in academic ME stuff) this is the common denominator that will emerge. Many journalists will just use whatever crosses their mind first: Islamism, Fundamentalism... all part of a soup they don't undestand. And people like Pipes or al-Banna jr. are just mangling and re-interpreting perfectly established concepts for political lobbying purposes. The article should not give undue weight to their ideosyncracies. Azate 22:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A serious, insightful and thought-provoking post. Much of what you say is fairly self-evident; however I've a few questions and possibly, objections. Before posing them, I'd like to make sure I'm understanding you: can you give examplars of flavors a-d?Timothy Usher 02:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am against merging (for reasons above, etc.) We should also try to close the merge tag since it's been on for quite some time. gren グレン 14:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To do List April 21

(started by Armon please add some more)

1. Nonviolent Islamists? see: #Citation_needed_and_Islamism_at_odds_with_Wikipedia_Islam_Project

Warning, incoming!

MOU's broken his word. Be aware that any edits in the near future are most likely going to be transient unless they meet his POV. Kyaa the Catlord 22:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: On my talk page he has reaffirmed his commitment to resist changing this article. Kyaa the Catlord 22:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

MuslimsofUmreka wrote, "The term itself is considered to be very controverisal. Most eduacted people avoid the term."

The first sentence is already in the article, first sentence, fourth paragraph, where the controversy is specified, although it certainly benefit from better citation. "is considered to be..." is weaselly. Finally, you shouldn't say that educated people avoid the term where you really mean that they "should" avoid it. "Islamism" is hardly a word one is likely to hear too much in less-educated circles. Your addition is thus, at least, inaccurate.Timothy Usher 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, MOU!

I'd be the first to admit that the article needs a better representation of your POV. However, I don't think the problem to be the introduction.

Here's something we might agree upon. This sentence in the fourth paragraph, "Islamists themselves may oppose the term because it suggests their philosophy to be a political extrapolation from Islam rather than a straightforward expression of Islam as a way of life," badly needs a cite. The "Islam and Islamism" section also needs cites. I can't think of a better person to add them, and associated material, than you, as this has been what you've been saying all along.

What do you think?Timothy Usher 05:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I'll get started on it in the morning or later on in the week. I'm a little bit tired and sleepy now. Its almost 2 am, were i'm at. MuslimsofUmreka 05:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Moderate Islamist of the Comoros

Dunno if this is appropriate or helpful at all. But this[4] article shows a democratically elected moderate islamist, who "would not outlaw the famous Comoran lavish wedding ceremonies or force women to cover their hair". Another thing worth mentioning is that he doesn't think, that the "overwhelmingly Muslim Comoros" are "ready to become an Islamic republic". Finally, the sub-header states that he is "seen as a moderate Islamist", but it does not state who "sees" him that way. On the other hand, his political opponents says "he is an Islamic extremist".

Can this article can be used in this article at all? It is quite ambiguious, and any conclusions drawn from this article could be seen as OR (I know that what I just concluded was in itself borderline OR, if not obvious OR). Maybe I should make a WP profile. Iafrate 10:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Slightly Off Topic

The article Islamic State is in a deplorable condition at the moment. I heaped some jumbled brainstorming text excerpts on its talk page for future expansion. Will work on it later, but I'm no expert, help welcome. --tickle me 13:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Too Little Info

Whoa! Where's all the stuff about terrorist bombings? This is a major part of Islamism/Islamist Fundamentalism and it's not here. Can someone provide more information on this and some links. (Anonymous User) May 24, 2006

Ambiguous Definition

Ummm.. it is well known that the Koran advocates an entire system including Government. All people that follow the Koran (i.e. Muslims) believe this. I don't understand what the differentiation between "Islamic" and "Islamist" is other than I hear the latter tossed around by elements of the media to somehow denigrate those to whom they are applying the latter label as somehow not being 'true muslims' (?) So in usage it is not a matter of being a "fundamentalist", it is a matter of someone whom the speaker feels is not a true Muslim. This really needs to be clarified AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ARTICLE. Not that it would somehow rob me of a right to an opinion, but I am not Islamic/Islamist, Jewish/Judaist, or Christian/Christianist. Sarastro777 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your bolded assertion. Islamism does not pose the question of who is and who is not authentically Muslim. It poses a question of socio-religious existence - of what an authentically Islamic society is and what such a society has to do with a given Muslim. The question of identity is secondary to the condition of being. --Vector4F 16:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence doesn't make sense to me, even though I have read it five times. Please rephrase. Secondly... "..authentically Islamic society is.." this is my point the word makes a judgment about whether someone is 'authentic' follower of Islam or some fundamentalist pseudo-"Islamist." That's going to always be in the eye of the beholder. Typically we accept anyone that professes to be a follower of Mohammed as a "Muslim" as similar to "Christian" is a follower or bleiever in Jesus even though there is wide variation in exact belief. It becomes laughable to start labeling people as "ists" when we don't see them as authentic because they vary against our conception of what is authentic belief (which includes a socio political outlook in the Koran) or not. I note the many people linked to this article are done so because the editors are trying to discredit them as somehow less than authentic Muslim. Sarastro777 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You're focusing on identity, which is not what Islamism seeks to discern - i.e. Islamism is not centered around the question "who is a Muslim?". I never mentioned authenticity in the context of an individual Muslim, but in reference to a society and the relationship of a Muslim to that society. This distinction is very important.

Islamism is concerned primarily with the socio-political existence of Muslims - their society, government, and so forth. "What sort of relationship should a Muslim have with their state?", for example. Authenticity is not debated in the context of an individual and their identity - it is debated in a much wider scope. The existence of a Muslim - a Muslim's being, as it were - is not centered on themselves. An Islamist critique of the Western nation-state model, for example, might conclude that such a model is inherently self-centered and too individualistic. So the argument might go, the effects of such a nation-state model would be to ultimately erode Islam and make it an accessory - a mere identity, perhaps. You see here how identity politics - as Westerners often indulge in - is typically condemned by Islamists. Islamists are very focused on the contexts in which Muslims live.

Now, as to the issue of labeling people Islamists and this term being confusing. The labeling of people as Islamists was taken up first by non-Muslims and later "non-aligned" Muslims to describe certain political interpretations of Islam and those who advocate them. These interpretations are deeply connected to specific places and times, but for some reason, have managed to evolve outside their original setting (some of Qutb's work, for example). Islamists do not use this label that we give them. When a Westerner labels someone an Islamist, that is not to say they are any more/less a Muslim. That is not even the issue. The label is a descriptive term that identifies that individual as participating in activities or adhering to ideas which fall under the general category of "Islamism". Again, the label is not a religious qualification - not even among most Muslims. The label is rooted in Western scholarship, while the phenomenon being labeled is non-Western. --Vector4F 20:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the extra info. I guess I still don't see the real difference between an Islamic person and an "Islamist" person. The article does not convey this clearly. As of my last reading, the differentiation of 'fundamentalist' was mentioned. I don't see how this clearly differentiates one from the other. If this neologized word warrants an article then I would think this could be explained simply in one sentence or two, at least so that the casual browser could understand. Detail obviously to follow.

I think part of my confusion is that the last paragraph starts "When a Westerner labels someone an Islamist... that identifies that individual as ... under the category of Islamism." That's really circular logic, so I am not able to grasp this differentiation. This needs to be made clear in the article in order for it be rigorous and understandable to other not familiar with the term. Sarastro777 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this Islamism a combination of "Islam" and Fundamental"ism"? That would certainly make sense whether or not you agree with the usage of the word, at least I could understand what it means. Sarastro777 21:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried my hand at editing the article, but was rebuffed. So I've stepped back from editting, as there's no point in doing a half-job (in my mind). It just makes things more confusing for readers. When my research finalizes a bit more, I may put up some documents elsewhere on the Internet.

What is Islamism? It is specific interpretations of Islam that advance political theories, related to certain places, times, and people. These appeared shortly after the introduction of Western-style modernity to Muslim-dominated societies. The classic cases are Egypt, Turkey, and Iran, where Islamists still operate politically and have great influence. However, other traditionally Islamic countries have been influenced by events and thinkers from these countries, as well as contributing on their own.

Honestly, don't focus too much on the exact label. There are many labels by which Western scholars distinguish this phenomenon. The most common is poltical Islam (though this sounds a bit non-descript, which is why media outlets don't use it), followed by Islamic radicalism, Islamic fundamentalism, and Islamism.

"Is this Islamism a combination of 'Islam' and Fundamental'ism'?" No, the linguistic device of "ism" in *this* case hails from the Western study of the Orient (Orientalism). It's just a legacy.

Now, there is the other question of whether or not Islamic fundamentalism is Islamism. Yes and no. Fundamentalism (the word and idea) comes from the 20th century effort by conservative North American Christians to defend certain religious tenets in the face of liberal Protestantism and rising skepticism. The term fundamentalism has been applied in more general terms to mean a religious interpretation that is literalist, absolute, and effectively non-rational (that is, reason is *not* the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not right). Western scholars usually consider Islamic fundamentalism to be any interpretation of Islam that fits this general template - some scholars are more particular than others. Almost all Islamists (groups and thinkers) have been fundmentalists and the basic theme in Islamism is that religion is central to social life and should set the values which regulate other things (like the state, education, etc.). Hope this helps. --Vector4F 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is by far the most useful base i've seen yet. I think someone should expand from here, using a little more sourcing. I think it is key to mention several factors: 1. Islamism is used to refer to groups that are generally political or have political aspirations or ideals. I prefer the term political Islam over Islamism to refer to these groups. I think it helps move away from the media's attempts to sound epic. 2. Reformist Islamic thought that began in the 19th century was by and large a reaction to the West. Or rather, colonial Christian Europe's rise as opposed to the Islamic empire that was long past its several primes. 3. The original reformist ideas balanced reason and religion whereas later branchings led to the emergence of secular ideas on the one hand and puritanical, "fundamentalist" thought (that also split off to include violent and non-violent branches) on the other. 4. It is important to incorporate the acual ideas and thought of the thinkers like Afghani, Mohamed Abduh, Rasheed Rida, Hassan el Banna, Qutb that led to the emergence of a wide range of ideas that are now labeled "Islamism". I think part of the reason for so much controversy is the fact that these people's ideas, though supposedly related, can be very different and all seem to conveniently fall under the same sensationalist label: Islamism. Bassemkhalifa 09:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed and POV tags replaced

Concerns in Talk:Islamism#Citation_needed_and_Islamism_at_odds_with_Wikipedia_Islam_Project were never addressed. The article still has those same glaring errors. User247 21:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This article will remain a POV always. It divides Muslims and according to this article every religious Muslim is Islamist. There is no doubt that Islam is a way to spend life and a Deen. It means if someone say so he is fundamentalist, Islamist and promote Islamism. These are the ugly words invented by West. ---Faisal 09:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're making a logical error. You state that all Muslims believe the same thing (e.g. Deen), but this does not mean that all Muslims live in the same way. The concept of Islamism is not an assertion about religion or religious "authenticity", but about various socio-political applications of religion. Any competent Islamic jurist, imam, etc. would be able to see this difference - this is, afterall, the theoretical basis for Fiqh, Tafsir, and the like. The label of "Islamism" does not make a metaphysical or universalist claim about Muslims, but merely classifies certain social theories. This isn't Orientalism. --Vector4F 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The mere fact that this article is at odds with the Wikipedia Islam article is enough reason to doubt all the work that has been put in. This has been argued on the talk pages and all the archives repeatedly but let me say it one more time: Islam is not a religion as defined by the standards set in Christianity. In fact, Islam is a way of life that encompasses necessary guidelines in all spheres of life--up to and including socio-economic applications. To claim anything less makes the editors of this Wikipedia article look ignorant and biased in pushing the watered down image of Islam the West would like to impose on all Muslims. I'm also bewildered that you seem to want suggest that Islam, as a religion, is defined by how individuals choose to practice it. It would be far more prudent for people like you to dive into the Quran and Hadith as they are PRIMARY sources from which to write a proper article about what Islam really entails. Only then will you realize Faisal's argument is correct: every religious Muslim is Islamist. By the way, why are there no proper academic sources cited from both the Islamic world and the Western world? Let me guess, people like you are going to cite Islam-hating folks such as: Robert Spencer, Martin Kramer, Daniel Pipes, etc? Sad indeed. 24.23.59.7 07:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I asserted only one position: 1) Not all Muslims apply their religion in the same way. 2) Therefore, classifying different applications is warranted. To disagree, one of these must be wrong. Either the observation (1) is wrong or the conclusion (2) is wrong. If you are saying the conclusion is wrong, then you should give some reason *why not* to classify different ideas and movements according to their interpretations. But to do this would be to suggest that all the classifications of Islamic thought (developed by Muslims) - from Qur'anic commentaries to juridical schools - are wrong and should be removed.

This is the only argument I am posing. --Vector4F 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to us to determine what Islam "really" is. Find reliable academic sources saying what you want to say, and let's add them to the article.Timothy Usher 07:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting recent articles in The Nation

The Nation, May 15, 2006 issue, has two articles that may be of interest to those working on the present article, especially since both are (vaguely) book reviews and hence point at a lot of sources.

• "Behind Enemy Lines" by Raffi Khatchadourian looks into books that document Osama Bin Laden's writings, interviews, and pronouncements.
• "From Piety to Politics" by Mahmood Mamdani looks at the interaction of Islam and politics from the time of the Prophet Muhammad forward, and the many rival traditions of interpretation of Islamic law.

Online at [5] and [6], respectively, but I think you need a Nation subscription to access them.Anyway, should be available in any decent U.S. public or academic library. - Jmabel | Talk 20:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Salafism/Wahhabism

Very simply, these are NOT the same thing. At all. They may have similiar beliefs and goals, however Wahhabism developed in the 18th century Arab Peninsula (what is now Saudi Arabia). Salafi thought came to prominence much later (in the 20th century). Bassemkhalifa 11:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, even Islamism, Salafism, and Wahabism are not the same thing. Islamism is a general term, which incorporates a variety of groups and streams, many of which contradict and hate each other (for instance, look at the relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two supposedly Islamic states). Salafism is an ideology of turning back towards the examples of the Prophet Mohammed and the first four caliphs, but in a more radical form than mainstream Muslims (who after all would also all support the statement that the Prophet Mohammed is a model for all Muslims), which often implies that salafis do not pray with other non-Salafi Muslims. Wahabism is a special stream in Islamic schools of thought, mainly present in Saudi Arabia (and hardly anywhere else), interpreting Islam in a way many Islamists elsewhere find quite distorted. Regards, --217.227.31.81 16:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

SCOPE & CONTEXT

I think the current problem is that there are people like me who are writing articles and want to put radical islamist groups into a link. We want to have a term that means "Those that are against the West and that call for the Destruction of Israel. Basically, they are Fundamentalist Islamic terror groups such as Al Quaida, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, PLO and the such. People are telling us not to use the word Islamist, or as I've tried in the past, Islamofascist, but apparently, that's not good for many of you. It's not Islam groups which has replaced several of my links in the past, because Islam groups could be a local non-profit organization that helps disabled children. What word to use if not Islamist? We tried to use terrorists but you've taken that out of the vocabulary. Don't say Palestinian Militias because it doesn't accurately represent their background or intentions as stated in their various charters.

Anti islam comments by Netaji

Please check Netaji 's anti islam comments on my talk page. [7] and here[8]. Synopsis- "There is only one kind of Islam. The kind that blows things up" and " I'm not upset about fundamentalism in Islam because there is no fundamentalism in Islam. Islam ITSELF is 'fundamentalist', in the sense of Intolerance, Slaughter, Looting, Arson, Molestation of women, ie I-S-L-A-M." Haphar 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And this is relavant to this article how? I have not seen this user editting here or otherwise active in discussions relateing to the content on this page? Kyaa the Catlord 23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Haphar's comments are unacceptable to this group. That is so true and we all know it: See the theocracy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Islamic theocracies are geniunely like that. They hang and stone people for gay sex under Islamic law, enough said.

Clean This Junk Up

This article is an embarrassment. It's like an Onion parody only more boring. It's repetitious and full or useless filler:

"Some western countries consider theocratic philosophies a threat to their status as secular nation states..."

"Some Muslims disagree with the ideologies and activities of those identified as Islamists..."

Tell us something we don't know!

The Problem of Placing Western Terms on islam

Fundamentalism, Islamicism, Jihadist, Islamofacist.....

All of these terms are made up by Western ideology to represent or misrepresent Islam. As such, they are inaccurate to say the least. If I could get some of the Arab speaking Muslims to give us the Arab term for Islamism we could shed some light on the issue. I doubt that this will happen because they is no such word in the Islamic lexicon. These articles should state clearly that these terms are a Western construction, rather than an Islamic one.

The problem is ... well there's a number of problems but first off, what name do you give the political/religious movement of maududi, qutb, khomeni, turabi and others? They are not all of the same theological school (Khomeini being shia) but they share ideas:

• They all believe islam is a political system in competition with socialism, capitalism, etc.
• they all believe the west is waging a war against islam,
• They all believed that shariah law would cover all aspects of life.
• they all have issues of some sort with traditionalist shuyukh/clerics/mullahs/fuqaha.

What do they call themselves? Usually they say "We are Muslims! Just call us Muslims!"

But this doesn't distinguish them from all the other traditionalist or modernist or reformist or whatever Muslims. And since they all (Islamists) have major ideas in common, somebody is going to give them a name. Islamism, ending with "ism" has a nice symmetry with other political ideologies ending in ism.

Sure the followers of these ideas object to being called "Islamists" or "Political Muslims," but if you believe Western conspiracies against Islam, ipso facto you're going to oppose any name Western authors/commentators/scholars give your movement because .... they're waging war against Islam so this must be part of it.

"Somebody" is going to have to give them a name? This idea sounds suspiciously like the mantra of the Colonizer to seeks to "civilize" the Colonized. Thus, they adopt this "father knows best" attitude and prompted usurps the voice of Colonized people. Khomeini et al do possess the ability to name themselves and their movements. As an English Major, with an interest in Post-Colonialism, it is not to hard to see that the belief that certain elements of the West arewaging a war on Islam may not be too far fetched. How many times have we heard of the need to democratize the Middle East? Of course, you could always discount that notion as a conspiracy theory. But if we follow the ideas of certain Marxist theorists such as Althausser, we can see that ideologies are constantly clashing.

An English major! I'm impressed! A Post-Colonialist too! Perhaps you can take a little time out from waiting on tables to answer the question posed.

There is a Movement. It gives itself a name - Islam. But that name is already taken. Taken by a much broader entity that is a religion. So those outside the Movement do not use the name it has given itself. In fact others are concerned by the Movement's implied (and sometimes stated) belief that people who consider themselves Muslims, but who disagree with the movement, are not Muslims (elsewise it would make much sense to call yourself movement Islam)

So try answering: A) Is it arrognant and colonialist, etc. to give a movement a name when the movment's own name doesn't is confusing/inacurate/generally problematic?

B) Is it not the people who have decided that THEY are Muslims and those who disagree with them are not who are arrogant? And not the ones trying to figure out a name for "Muslims"? --Not an English Major

If you think that terms such as Islamist are innocent in creation, consider the term Fundementalist, which is now employed solely to describe Muslims who do what? Follow the fundementals of their religion? Does that mean that the fundementals of Islam are backward and primative and evil? Then again, I guess it is only a term!

"now employed solely to describe Muslims"?? Are you sure? Googling "Sikh fundamentalist" I get 171,000 hits. Christian Fundamentalist gets 5,890,000 hits. 3,540,000 hits for "jewish fundamentalist." The last two are both more than the number of hits for muslim fundamentalist - only 3,380,000 hits.

And so we could discuss the terms such a Jihadists, who apparently like to blow themselves up to gain access to 70 virgins. I wonder, have not Muslims and Muslim scholars explained the concept of jihad to the Western World? Of course, they have! They have stated that the highest level of Jihad is the fight against one's own self....to live a virtuous life. This knowledge is available in libraries across the world and online. And yet none that is ever mentioned mysteriously...

Saying that Muslim individuals and groups have failed to define their causes and beliefs is like saying that India simply gave those Royal jewels to the Queen as a gift...

(Everyone, please sign your comments.) It's a ridiculous argument to say that Western labels are inherently malicious or improper and that Islamic/Arabic labels are somehow more accurate and representative. Aside from it's blatant disregard for scholarship of all sorts, such a position naively assumes that the Arabic language is somehow immune to ideological "pollution". --Vector4F 05:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to point out that you assume just a tad too much regarding my profession. So I would urge you to keep this discussion civilized and not to resort to personal attacks to validate your view point.

I respect that you have an opinion on the issue.

Islam is a religion, rather than a "Movement." If you want to call Islam a Movement, then do you consider Judaism and Christianity "Movements" also?

I think that you are assuming that Muslims who follow these doctrines of "Islamism" do not define themselves. Now even if this is true, why is the word "Islam" attached to the Western definition of Islamism? We indeed could call them "Salafis" or "Wahabis" or terms which the Muslim world already uses to define these groups. These terms do exist in the Muslim world, but are not being used in the West.

It is because CERTAIN elements of the West seeks to marginalize Islam.

It is important to realize that Islam and all other ideologies want to marginalize their competitors.

Like I said earlier, ALL ideologies are battling each other for supremacy. I did not say that Islam is immune from that. But it seems that we are implicitly taking the Western perspective as the Truth.

This is why I am discussing these terms which ultimately do not portray ISLAM in a positive light. We can discuss these terms semiotically, as Saussurian fashion, if that is academic enough?

I just want to highlight if nothing else, that these terms which are relatively new are loaded and are not an innocent attempt to better understand and detail these Movements.

Best Regards,

70.55.238.80 19:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)AP

I would tend to agree with the comment on the use of the term Islamism (or oher terms) without qualifying the controversy over the labels and what they mean. There is absolutely no doubt that the groups to whom these terms are used to refer do not like the labels as they all consider themselves to be Muslims, practicing the correct interpretation of Islam. Now, while their opinion may not be all that relevant, if we're going to talk scholarship, most academic scholarship on Active Islam/Political Islam/Islamism or Ideology in the Middle East tends to acknowledge this problem. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the citation on this page, some people are not very clear on what is a legitimate, citable source. I would draw your attentions to the work by Professor Saad Eldin Ibrahim and the Ibn Khaldun Center. The International Crisis Group also has a good study on Islamism that is accessible off of their website. I would also suggest a search through the Arabist.net archives for articles on the Muslim Brotherhood and other 'Islamist' movements. I would especially point your attention to an article by Mona El Ghobashy. A scanned copy is available on the Arabist. Bassemkhalifa 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Need to Higher Scholarly Standards

As Bassemkhalifa rightly points out, there are many Arab scholars who have addressed this issue. In the world of academia I would venture to say that Saad Eldin Ibrahim has a greater standing that Robert Spencer, whose hatred for Islam is covered by a thin veneer of psuedo-intellectualism. We have to acknowledge the fact that Muslim and Arab scholars have explored this issue.

70.55.238.80 18:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest an, although slightly dated (mid nineties), book called: Bitter Legacy by Professor Paul Salem, a Lebanese academic. The book does a very good job providing a basis for understanding ideology in the Arab world. He looks not only at the different ideologies, but also traces their origins and frames them in their social, political, religious contexts. I strongly suggest leafing through at least the relevant parts, if you can get your hands on the book. Bassemkhalifa 09:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

For Further Reading Section

The books included in this section make it a travesty. They are ALL filled with anti-Islamic rhetoric and the list needs to be balanced out. Also, those books have nothing to do with "Islamism" in the sense of a political theory. Wallah96 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wallah, I have tried to add a few books with alternative and more balanced views. I hardly know any of the ones that were listed there before and I don't believe they are highly important ones either. --217.227.31.81 16:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needs deleting

A part of islamic belief is in the sharia, how can there now be a seperate legal term that splits islam into religion and political? This is nonsense, Islam is not Christianity it is a religion with a political system, i think this is a pov. Thus Islam = shariah--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagging with worldview and disputed about

The edit [9] by user HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) who's contributions [10] do seem to use the word "POV" a lot plus their desire to delete the article would indicate that the worldview and dispute about tags are spurious for this article. What do others think ? The article does seem "balanced". It'll never be clean cut as Sharia seems essential to Islam but as a body of law that is clearly at odds with European Human rights law so there will always be a difference in "worldviews" of muslims in Sharia based countries and say so called secular European countries. Ttiotsw 11:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Term is a Western Invention

The term is a Western invention which has no analogue in Islamic thought. It is consistent with an ideology that seeks to marginalize Islam. This is the impetus behind the creation of the terms "fundamentalist","radical Islam", and "Jihadist." These terms implicitly posit that there is an acceptable brand of Islam, as opposed to this "radical" brand which is unacceptable. It is no coincidence that the "Modern Muslim" espouses ideas in line with Western thought. Hence, they are bandied as model Muslims. Certain people may protest this viewpoint. However, we agree that the word fundamentalist has a negative connotation. Yet a fundamentalist is one who follows the....fundamentals, the key principles of their religion?! That strongly suggests that Islam's principles are negative and immoral. Now let us break down the word "Jihadist." As a Muslim I know that that the highest level of Jihad is the internal fight against one's own desire and to live a selfless life. As such every Muslim is urged to live a virtuous life. However, certain elements of the West seek to reduce the term Jihad to include blowing oneself up and collecting 70 virgins in heaven. This is not an oversight because information is readily available in this increasingly small world that we live in. No, information pertaining to Islam is being purposefully distorted and demonized. That is why so many individuals, especially Muslims are fighting to prevent purposeful misrepresentations of their religion being disseminated.

This article has been slapped with tags for a reason.

Best Regards,

70.55.238.80 18:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've reworded the introduction for clarity, and tweaked some of the links.

I've also noted that the term is a neologism, and mentioned that the distinction between islam and islamism is somewhat unclear. My understanding is that Islam says that all Muslims 'should' live in an Islamic state, but there is a great deal of disagreement as to how strong this obligation is, ranging from vaguely preferable to violently necessary.

I'm aware that the words "violently opposed" could mean "prepared to use violence" or "strongly opposed". This is consciously ambigous, because the term Islamism is sometimes used to mean both those groups, and sometimes only to mean those prepared to use violence. There's probably a better way to address that ambiguity.

The recurring theme of these movements, is to guide Muslims back to the origins of Islam, the original teachings and the models of the pious forefathers (al-salaf, AD 610-855)

I've moved and reworded this sentance, because what it says is true of all islamists, not just historical ones.

Islamism is a multi-faceted ideology, with a large variety of political divisions. The phenomenon includes moderate and relatively liberal groups as well as radicals, including Salafis, fundamentalists, neo-fundamentalists, and traditionalists. This variety of often competing streams of thought implies that a clear distinction between the one and the other under the term 'Islamism' alone is not given.

I've moved this paragraph here because it needs to be cleaned up and put somewhere, probably not back into the introduction.

There are still a couple of sections that would benefit from being merged into other sections, but I'll leave this here for now.

'Post 9/11 Issues' should probably be merged into 'recent history'

'Fear of Cultural Hegemony of the West' should probably be merged into 'Islamism and modern political theory' which should probably be expanded and moved before History.

And arguably, recent history should be extracted into its own section, and moved to the top, given that it is probably of more importance to the reader than the rest of the history section.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Attempt, But Still Problematic

There is so many problems with this article, but let me just touch upon some key issues. Islam is a complete way of life. As such there is NO distinction between religion and state. The idea that Islamist are the only ones that believe this is wrong. This idea is established in the religion. I am afraid that a total rewrite is needed in order to establish this term clearly as a Western construction. Once again, there is no analogous word in the Islamic lexicon to denote "Islamist." I am not foolishly arguing that the term was not exist. But due diligence must be carried out on the origin of the word.

In terms of the idea that Muslims should live in an Islamic State, the general consensus is that Muslims DO NOT wage war to make that a reality for those living in non-muslim lands. Also, Muslims are urged to abide by the laws of the country which they choose to reside. This is very clear.

I could go on at length to discuss the problematic nature of the term, but the paragraph that is mentioned alluding to the multi-faceted nature of the ideology indicates in itself that the term CANNOT be accurately defined because it is indeed an umbrella term. Hence, if accuracy is what we hope to achieve in Wikipedia we must consign ourselves to the idea that this article as it stands is erroneous, unfocused, and suffers from a stilted POV.

I apologize if I sounded too haughty, and I appreciate all of your work and do not want to belittle your endeavours. But if I can only impart one idea it is that the term does not exist in Islam. (Neither does Fundamentalism, Jihadist, et al) If we want to discuss these terms, we must firstly state that these are western terms, and chart the origins and implications of these terms.

Best Regards,

70.55.238.80 16:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:70.55.238.80; It does not matter what you think, do you think those who pay for wiki care what you think? Then think twice before wasting you time! Thanks for listening. Kiumars

Err.. Wiki is free, so no one is paying for it, Kiumars. Secondly, it is true "Islamism" is not used in Islam itself. It is obviously an English-language neologism which is already cited in the article; ipso facto, it is an observation and description of Islamic society by Westerners. The very term itself is POV, as it is a socio-political description of the political nature of Islam vs. the philosophical/theological aspects of it as a faith. However, it is a valid term to discuss and archive in Wikipedia, as are other neologisms key to understanding Western analysis and criticism of Islam. --Petercorless 22:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Petercorless nothing is free in this world; Wiki may be free to use but it is not run for free and some people are paying for it. Do you have any idea how much it costs to host and maintain a website like Wiki? Contact your ISP and get a quote, you will be surprised! Kiumars

There is an indirect cost, and there are voluntary contributors to Wikipedia. However, your arguments are spurious and specious. You are free to contribute to this article and discussion, but do not conflate the discussion to Wikipedia's finances. --Petercorless 07:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The cost is not the issue here. As an Arab Muslim, i can guarantee you that there is actually no word for Islamism. There is an Egyptian colloquial term for Islamist. However it is used with caution (people's interpretation of the word varies from "Conservative Muslim" to "Terrorist"). The closest term is Usooly (not sure about the transliteration) which is derived from the word for origin or fundament. I am not 100% sure, but i think it was in itself the Arabization of the Fundamentalist which, if i have my info straight, refers to a christian movement that started in the US. The label was at some point, probably by western media, tagged onto "Islamists". Again, a word to be used with ccaution.

Here's my suggestion. A segment of the article should be dedicated to explaining the controversial nature of the terms used (eg Islamism, Islamic Activism, Political Islam, Fundamentalist, Jihadi) which have all been, at some point or other used by someone as synonyms. Two good sources for this are Saad El Din Ibrahim who has been studying Islamists, especially in Egypt, for decades and the Int'l Crisis Group (ICG) Report on Islamism (or Active Islam, as i believe they call it). It shouldnt be too difficult to search for off of their site. 62.114.44.148 09:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Iranian Islamic Revolution & Khomeinism

Guys this section looks like an article from Jerusalem post! I can put many citations on it but there would be too many! You better come up with more convincing arguments and present fact and figures not rumors and fantasies. Can you? Ok, let’s try. Kiumars

Can you be more specific. What exactly is rumor and fantasy in that section? It looks like everything is sourced. --Leroy65X 17:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Muslim Brotherhood

I'd just like to suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood section be revisted. Here are the broad lines that i think need to be addressed:

1. A moore in depth look into the thought of Afghani, Mohamed Abdu and Hassan el Banna, the diffferences between them and how their thinking shaped discourse.

2. Then comes Qutb with his significantly more radical approach.

3. Then there can be discussion of the phases they have gone through (28-40s; 40s to mid 50s; their times in prison; their splintering in prison; the 70s when Sadat released them; the eighties to present or the Mubarak Era)

4 the MB has been probably the single most important, influential player in Sunni Islamic Activism in the world. There are branches in almost every Muslim nation in the world, some that have emerged as their own organizations (Hamas, no less). So a Solid understanding of their role is critical.

I made a "main" link to the Muslim Brotherhood article. Though it was inline in the paragraph text, perhaps by calling it out more people will follow the link to see the information you are looking for. --Petercorless 13:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Etymology Needs to Be Expanded Upon

In my opinion it is not enough to say that the term is a neologism, and therefore this term is loaded with ideological bias. And consequently, the Western root of the term does not need to be discussed. This article is a little too top heavy in detailing what certain invested parties would like us to believe about Islam. My suggestion is to add a solid paragraph at the beginning to show the birth of the term and discuss its problematic nature. Therefore everything written below this coda can be contextualized as not representing Islam itself, but rather how the creators of the term Islamism view Islam. Perhaps this way a huge rewrite is not necessary, but the exploration of the term is framed.

Best Regards,

70.55.238.80 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Two points:

The article is already tagged

This article is about political Islamism. For the religion of Islam, see Islam

and has a couple more sentences explaining

This usage is controversial. People who are labeled Islamists oppose the term because it suggests their philosophy to be a political extrapolation from Islam rather than a straightforward expression of Islam as a way of life. Some Muslims find it troublesome that a word derived from “Islam” is applied to organizations they consider radical and extreme.

Is Al Jazeera loaded with ideological bias? Does it have an agenda of what it would like us to believe about Islam? It uses the term Islamism regularly.

IOW, the word is in use not just in Western but in non-Western publications. It is not going anywhere. It serves a need as a descriptor of a theory and a movement found all over the Islamic world and in much of the western world and that is very much in the news with protests, bombing, beheadings, etc. Eliminating it from wikipedia, or making this article less usable with a long disapproving introduction, will not make the word go away.

-- Affectionately, Leroy65X 23:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We Are Not Arguing Against the Existence of Islamism

We know that the term exists. And we also know that Al-Jazeera uses the term in their English broadcasts. But the Al-Jazeera usage ONLY proves the terms existence, which we are not contesting. What is being contested is the lack of etymology of the term. Just from a factual perspective the opening paragraph is shaky because Islam is viewed as a COMPLETE way of life. This idea is not a radical idea but one which is established in mainstream Islam.

True, but the rest of what is descriped is not quite so mainstream

.... a political system where Islamic law is preeminent in all fields of society, and that Muslims must return to the original teachings and the models of Islam. In practice, the word Islamist is used to denote Muslims violently opposed to the encroachment of "western" political, social, and cultural influence on the Muslim world.

Secondly, the so-called experts of Islam mentioned (Robert Spencer et al) are far from experts. rather, these individuals have a long and documented history of anti-Islamic bias.

Fred Halliday and John Esposito too? I don't know reputable Spencer and Bostom are but we can't exclude scholars because their work contradicts apologetics.

The question that I ask myself is why is there so much resistance to showing the Western origins of this term in this article? The way that the article is fashioned presently, it merely states the creators of "Islamism" viewpoint as FACT.

I certainly have no resistance. It's an english and french term. --Leroy65X 22:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That is the reason why the root of the term needs to be discussed. We know the term exists....Now tells how it came about...

Best Regards,

70.55.238.80 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Those that point out the problems of the term should not be labelled apologists. What are they trying to defend, I wonder? But you are right that John Esposito is a real academic, not because of his positions, but because of his scholarly background. Robert Spencer in constrast is no expert.

Best Regards to you,

70.55.238.80 19:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasons why to strike this statement: 1. The offered links ar not valid. 2. The fact for Al Jazeera or any other broadcast company using these terms does not prove their correctness.

The English website for Al Jazeera, for example, uses these terms frequently. [11][12].

I can't help but wonder if the main reason for striking the statement is it undermines the idea that "islamism" is the work of western propaganda that good muslms do not use! I will attempt to make these statemetns more precise.

I'm also going to add a history of usage section that may answer some of your concerns. --Leroy65X 20:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Algeria

I miss mentions of GIA, FIS and the elections in Algeria which the FLN lost. Also mention how the king of Morocco deals with local Islamism.

Added brief sections on algeria and lebanon and their important islamist movements --Leroy65X 20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ayubi quote?

This Ayubi bit about how Islamists merely wish to "escape upwards" seems needlessly argumentative and POV. There's plenty of specific programs proposed by, say, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamists I've talked to have definite political and economic programs they want to implement. They may be bad ideas, but they're still ideas. Relevance of Ayubi's quote? Graft | talk 20:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Ayubi, but stressing identity and dogma over practical solutions is a common criticism of Islamism. e.g. virtually no non-Islamist economist agrees that the banning of riba, interest paid on loans, will help any national economy in any way. It's not enough to have "ideas". --Leroy65X 18:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Muslim

Not All The Muslims Is Beileve In Islamism As A political ideolegy.

The Islam religion Itself Is A Secularismic Religion

Liberalism Is The Solution

Opening Paragraph

This sentence, "and that western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influence on the Muslim world is against Islam." needs to be cited as coming directly from source which is interpreting the Koran, or deleted. It's an obvious interpretive leap.

No it does not. It can cite the works of Islamist leaders like Maududi, Qutb, and or Khomeini. This article is about Islamism, not the Quranic basis of Islamism. And kindly sign your posts on the talk page. --Leroy65X 17:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Militant Islam?

Should Militant Islam redirect here instead of where it goes now? J. D. Redding 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes view on Islam

User:Kitrus has made the claim that Daniel Pipes

argues that political stances characterized as Islamist are actually central to Islam as a faith and questions the validity of the terms "Islamist" and "Islamism".

What is the source for this claim? Please keep in mind the strict sourcing requirements of WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have included Pipes (with a different claim), citing his website as a source.Bless sins 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I have removed it again. The article is about Islamism, not about Islamic militancy. -- Karl Meier 17:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pan-Islamism

Should we merge this article here. I don't think there is much of a difference.Bless sins 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pan-Islamism could be a section of the Islamism article. --Leroy65X 15:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamists=3/4 all Islamic teachings?

Oromo101 19:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Yes they are every muslim because becuase the definition islam isn't just a religion it is a way of life. the only part that won't include Islam in it is that they can take the inluence of any culture as long as it is good. Like some laws that would jepordize the muslim bliefs wouldn't be allowed. For example i was reading an article about a women walking naked amongst other pwople in New York and a police officer arrested her and the judge said you cant do anything to her. The kind of laws made by man that contradicts Islam or moral snce is just not allowed for Muslims. The political system of the western (modernized) world isn't right for 3/4 Islamists or Muslims in any part of the world since it would put man in the place of god in an Islams point of view since the Muslim Quran strictly states that you must follow the Sharia law. It doesn't matter if your in America, Russia, France, or even Mars you still have to follow these laws at your fullest extent as long as that person is willing to call himself a muslim. The word "Islamist" shouldn't even been part of the English language it should be replaced by the word Islam and it's true meaning. If you turn into a muslim that doesn't mean you have to changed every aspect of your life, change only your bad habits.

This is a perenial arguement. The answer is the same as before. Who were the Islamists fighting in Algeria, in Egypt, in Pakistan, in Morocco? Presbyterians? Buddhists?

They were fighting Muslims. To say Islamists are just Muslims fighting for Islam implies their (self-described Muslim) enemies are non-Muslims, which is not true.

We need another word besides Muslim and Islam to describe who Islamists are, and we need to describe how they differ from traditional Muslims, modernist Muslims, etc. If you don't believe me, ask al-Jazeera. They use the word. --Leroy65X 21:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Foundadtion of the first Islamic Republic in Iran

The section is mainly written based on non-academic webpages with obvious anti-Muslim tone (not to mention unsourced statements). If you want to write a section like this, you may want to use more academic, neutral and scholarly sources. There are hundreds of such books and articles around. If you really want to use such webpages, you have to include some information from webpages governed by Islamic Republic too. Azartash 12:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Added citations for the section, mainly from al-jazeera or books published by university publishers. --Leroy65X 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relation between Islam and Islamism

"Some experts on Islam reject the notion that Islam is inherently political (e.g. Fred Halliday and John Esposito)."

These experts on aren't Muslims. So how can they say something about Islam unless it is there opinion.

If these are truly experts I'm sure they would of converted already.

Do we only go to authorities who believe in/support the subject of the article? Can only Marxists be authorities on Marxism? Do we only Catholics for information on the Roman Catholic Church? Only Republicans on the Republican Party in the US? --Leroy65X 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Many academic researchers argue Islam is inherently political highlighting the intertwining of politics and Mohammed's life cf. the secularism of christianity and Jesus's lfe. Both views should be stated with references - (I'd be interested in a reference for Esposito's view) Jk54 (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Section on "Islam, Islamism and the west"

This section [[13]] is too long, too repetitious and too uninformative. We need the history, the causes, and background of Islamism, not looooong text on how the West and Islam are antagonistic to each other. --BoogaLouie 20:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Symbol/emblem of this ideology

If it is correct to asssume that Islamism is a political ideology in its own right (on par with fascism or communism), does it have a symbol of its own? Would it be a banner with the Shahada or perhaps the crescent and star? Or perhaps simply the color green? What symbols do established Islamist political parties use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.8.241 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

While many would call it a political ideology, there isn't really an "official" Islamist movement, or like some sort of HQ somewhere where all the "official" or "standardized" symbols are agreed upon. There are many different Islamist movements worldwide, some of which have no connection to each other at all. I'm sure we could find symbols for those individual movements, but as far as one for the whole article subject goes, I don't think there really is one. MezzoMezzo 19:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The crescent and star is Ottoman or turkish. Mezzo is right. there isn't central command and direction like the old comintern. --Leroy65X 21:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger with Political aspects of Islam

Not in favor of merger. Islamism is one version of how Islam should express itself politically. Liberal Islam has another expression. I do agree that something should be done with Political aspects of Islam as it has no sources and is pretty unencyclopedic. --Leroy65X 20:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thin they should be kept separate - the whole Islamism debate although starting off as an academic study of political islam has become hijacked by politicians, modernists, secularists etc as another enemy to bash to maintain the status quo or US hegemony in the Muslim world. The discussion surrounding this (application) is different to the one regarding political dimensions of Islam (theoretical) Jk54 (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of the Political aspects of Islam merger tag?

Here is a message I got from DBaba:

Regarding your revert at Islamism. I made that edit for a couple of reasons. For starters, to suggest that Islamism be merged with Islam is to suggest that Islamism comes within Islam, rather than without. This is quite a radical suggestion, and one that, to my mind, is unduly critical simply in the asking. Clearly, the people of Turkey do not practice an Islam that allows for Islamism; clearly, the radicalism of Iran is not the radicalism of Islam, just the radicalism of Iran. Know what I mean? It's a slur just to ask the question, because it suggests that Iranian oppression is Islamic oppression, when it's rather an interpretive response to Islam, something along those lines.

Also, the question has stood for months, and the only response I noted on the talk page suggested dropping it. I agree, fiercely!

I also deleted the description of the page as "about political Islam". I find that to be technically false. The page is about political systems that incorporate (or, depending on your view, appropriate) Islam. Even if the note was made more accurate ("This page is about political interpretations of Islam"), it would be unnecessary and unhelpful.

I propose that unless someone has a good objection we go along with the delete of the merger tag, (hurry up, we'll give you one week).

As for the deletion of the "This article is about political Islam For the religion of Islam, see Islam," message at the beginning of the article I disagree with DBaba. It's useful to have a quick description to distinguish the subject of the article from Islam itself or the study of Islam. "political islam" is nice, quick two word phrase. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How about, This page is about Islamic political systems. I feel like the current wording suggests that Islamist political systems are necessarily Islamic, when they only strive to be. They are only interpretations, so they are tending toward Islam, rather than Islam tending toward politics. Hope that's clear! Cheers, DBaba (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I buy that, except that if we want to avoid suggesting "that Islamist political systems are necessarily Islamic," we should say something like the "the Islamic political and religious movement known as Islamism," which is longer but still readable. Any objections? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I dig it. DBaba (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification.

I'm giving this tag a week before I take it down. There may be some section that need citations but the article has over 130. Any objections? --BoogaLouie 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No section devoted to Islamist terrorism?

Much of Islamic terrorism is in fact Islamist terrorism. "Terrorism" should be one of the most important sections of this page. Was this page written by bin Laden apologists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.146.20 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well have to work on that --BoogaLouie 23:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism is a marginal aspect at best of Islamism, and may require a separate page of its own otherwise "Islamism" becomes a totally confused and useless page attempting to cover too many phenomenon in one go. The major themes of Islamist are that of Sharia, Caliphate and political reform to bring about a synthesis of religion and politics. Some groups use violence to achieve this - most do not. Jk54 (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Mawdudi section trimmed

I trimmed the sectino and moved a quote to the main Abul Ala Maududi article. This article is gettnig pretty long. --BoogaLouie 23:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Commission Report's definition of Islamism

I have issue with the usage of the 9/11 commission report's definition of Islamism ("an Islamic militant, anti-democratic movement, bearing a holistic vision of Islam whose final aim is the restoration of the caliphate."). It appears to be written more as a criticism of Islamism than a definition. Firstly it is a description of a perceived current Islamist movement rather than the concept of Islamism and I think that is why it is able to use the adjectives 'militant' and 'anti-democratic'.

I would also question the neutrality of the source. As I mentioned previously, the immediate context is the statement that "Islamist terrorism is an immediate derivative of Islamism." User:BoogaLouie said that the neutrality of the source is not necessary for the article to be NPOV but if the source is clearly partial, shouldn't the source be mentioned in the article as well as the references section? The current wording of "Others define it as" doesn't suggest even criticism. Not forgetting also that this paragraph (the second one) is supposed to be dealing with the definition of the term, not the criticism of the ideology.

The current wording is better than describing them as broad and narrow definitions though, I have to admit.

Dormouse80 (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is useful to have a section which discusses the definitions proposed, whether politically motivated or not, and attempt to come to some sensible conclusion rather than ignore the entire discussion and impose one defintiion without explanation. This would find a concensus I would have thought than the other approach... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

I was truly disconcerted to see this article on wikipedia. I have always been a strong advocate of wikipedia, but I'm not sure the purpose of this page at all. Islamism appears to me to be a devised term used as a rhetorical concept, like "democracy in the middle east" or "Islamo-Fascism"; or, for that matter any number of contrived terms often used as polemical devices. The point is, after the invention of such a meaningless, all-encompassing phrase, its users are invariably asked to define it. Since they have difficulty giving a definition to so broad a phrase, they produce a vague list of 'characteristics'--traits that usually indicate a label of "islamist" is in order. The problem is, the list of characteristics is so extensive it would force most moderate muslims to evaluate deep religious questions in order to render a "yes or no" answer to your question of whether they believe in a certain article of faith deemed "islamist".

The main problem is the subsequent association of Islamism with anti-American terrorism. In fact, the article is set up not as an objective presentation, one that would be accepted by both critics and supporters of an ideology as being neutral, fair or even handed. Rather, it reads as a polemical speech, dropping hints of negative association, then masterfully building to an all-out association at the end of the second paragraph. The article reads as an indoctrination, setting up first a seemingly neutral association of Islamism with the belief in Islam as a political system. The article uses certain code words--words like un-Islamic, sharia and others--that sound to uninitiated western ears of repression. Following is an association with rules about dress, playing music, and other mundane activities, which give the reader the direct impression that islamists--defined in the first line as muslims who believe Islam is a political system--advocate the death penalty for watching television. This may be a fair characterization of what people mean when they say "Islamist", but that proves the word's purpose as a polemical device, not one that any individual would self-apply. It is an appellation, and often the figures listed have little common ideological ground, beyond that feebly used by polemicists to group them together as Islamist. However, the article appears to present these people as espousers of whichever doctrine the article is about--in this case, espousers of Islamism. We now have an ideology, a list of beliefs, and a number of people (whose biographies reveal them not to be very nice) who all share it. However, this is a fallacious circle and a distortion, and a dangerous one at that.

When a word is made up to lump all of one's enemies into a single category, and that word is then defined to include people who share a broadly held political viewpoint, what can we call it but propaganda? Legitimizing words like "islamism" by asserting they describe realistic bonds between actually disparate views enables a political discussion with real ramifications to proceed on idelogically shaky and logically fallacious ground. This serves as a disservice to all parties, none of whom benefit from the oversimplification of complex issues. This of course is to condemn even the existenceof a neutralpage on Islamism; in fact we find that the article creatively gives life to the term, provides a contrived list of candidates, and rouses the reader to an irrational hatred of the ideology. This is a kind of "straw man" article, like the straw man argumentative fallacy. A straw man ideology is created, one that is easy to discredit because wecreate the criteria. We give it both broad based characteristics, and negative associations. We then point out all the bad things about it (things that are only in the same category because we put them there, under a name we created), and discredit all those with whom we now choose to associate the term.

This means that now, whoever we associate with Islamism (and we've given ourselves a big enough net to catch any practicing Muslim and tag her or him), our readers will associate with all the bad things, and voila! they're discredited before they speak. I realize I have more than belabored the point, but I feel it important to show exactly why I feel this article should not exist, or should not be permitted to present itself as a neutral article on a realistic phenomenon on a website committed to objective investigation. 99.226.0.106 (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding Eric comment added by 99.226.0.106 (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

please explain what specifically in the article shows bias, is polemical, or is any more "meaningless, all-encompassing phrase" than say the term "socialism" or "fascism". --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

When an article is written on a broad umbrella term that emcompasses many variations, the best way to accurately describe it, and to distill the essence of the term, is to focus on those characteristics which typify it, those which are shared by the greatest number of proponents who would be considered orthodox by most other proponents. This, of course would be tricky for Islamism, as it is not a self-applied term, and therefore determining who is and isn't is a muddy business. Nonetheless, if possible, we would want to describe the CORE CHARACTERISTICS, those broadly shared by proponents. Instead, this article characterizes extremes, linking broadly held Islamic beliefs with extreme violence and repression. A contrast of this article with the one on Zionism , which portrays another controversial term, albeit in language that would likely be considered fair by self-proclaimed Zionists, will demonstrate in what way this article is biased.

As for its vagueness: read the first paragraph of each article on islamism, socialism, and fascism. In the case of the latter two, we are given definitions which, while far from absolute, nonetheless demarcate these ideologies from others. It is this demarcation that is crucial here. While not all socialists or fascists believe the same thing, if someone agrees with a self-description consonant with these definitions, the chance is that they are a socialist or a fascist, and not something else. This kind of reverse test is failed by Islamism: the fact that someone views Islam as a political ideology does not confirm that they are in fact an Islamist, as these views are likely to be affirmed by most Middle Easterners, rendering the descriptive value of the term Islamism essentially zero.

Essentially, the term provides us with the convenience of not allowing anyone to espouse political Islam or pan-Arabism without being labelled by a term which irrefutably carries a negative stigma and an association with violence and repression. It is a red herring and an ad hominem, one which stifles both open debate and legitimate political discourse in the middle east. There are realistic phenomena exerting very real political forces in the middle east: the kind of pan-national unionism one might expect from a region of relative ethic, linguistic, religious and ideological homogeneity; as well as the sort of violent resistance one might anticipate from the brutalized citizens of totalitarian governments. Simplifying the debate by creating an abstraction to catch all resistive ideologies under a single term, then reifying that term and proposing it as a causal factor of the disparate phenomena it clumsily seeks to explain is a form of begging the question that renders the term, as stated earlier, of no descriptive value.

-Eric 99.226.0.106 (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed the term is different than socialism or fascism or capitalism because the peolpe it applies to reject its use.

"this article characterizes extremes, linking broadly held Islamic beliefs with extreme violence and repression" This is untrue. The article includes the Turkish Justice and Development Party which is so moderate its probably post-Islamist rather than Islamist. It has only a short section on Islamic terrorism. It also gives multiple definitions of the term Islamism in the lead.

Please explain what part of the article "stifles both open debate and legitimate political discourse in the middle east." I find this claim hard to take. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Creating a term which would not be self-applied by anyone it is used to describe, draining it of descriptive value by grouping moderate elements with extremist elements, drawing links between them that exist only on the most tenuous of grounds, may not in and of itself stifle debate, but to begin with it certainly is of little use. What does stifle debate is whenever the term is used. Immediately the question "what does islamism even mean" will sidetrack the issue; since it is clear that this article itself fails to provide an adequate answer to this question, asking it is quite legitimate. In the unlikely case that a mutually satisfactory definition could be arrived at, we still have the problem that no one would self-describe themselves as Islamist. So now, instead of comparing viewpoints, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each position, and synthesizing workable solutions, you have groups defending themselves against an epithet, perhaps even obscuring the ideological foundations of their arguments to avoid being labelled an Islamist. My question is, if we have a term that no one would self-apply, that is so broad it has little descriptive value, carries an emotional weight and a negative connotation, and whose definition cannot be agreed upon by the community, what is the purpose of presenting this article as an analysis of a realistic phenomenon? The fact is that the term Islamism is applied post-hoc to already existing phenomena, then proposed as a causal factor in those phenomena. Proceeding on the grounds of this circular logic is what stifles debate.

It's not that this article shouldn't exist. It should simply read very differently. Instead of attempting to describe for readers what Islamism means, the article should be about the term itself--who uses it, for what reason, what various parties think it describes, and what is going on in the Islamic world that results in the term's existence. Given the heated contention with which this article is discussed in this very section, I do not see how this article can claim to represent a "neutral point of view", and therefore, at the very least, should carry a warning indicating that this article is qualitatively different from other articles defining ideologies. This is not a page on an ideology; it is a page on a term used to characterize various ideologies.

-Eric

99.226.0.106 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should an article on Islamism not be about Islamism? An article on socialism or fascism or capitalism, is about socialism or fascism or capitalism, and not about "who uses it, for what reason, what various parties think it describes." There are moderate and extreme elements of all those groups/movements. That's no reason not to have articles on them.

As we have agreed it is true Islamist disavow the term, but their self-describing term is usually "Muslim" or "monotheists", which is not used by many others and not very useful.

The word is not the exclusive property of neocons or rightwing nuts. Al Jazeera uses it. Search: "islamist site:english.aljazeera.net" in google and you get 1200 hits.

The basic issue is that Islamism refers to something, and as long as it does there are always going to be people wanting to know what that something is. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To Clarify

It may sound like a stupid question, but Islamist = A Fundamentalist Islam Religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomMcLean (talk • contribs) 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No it's a realy complicated question. Some (Graham E. Fuller) say fundamentalism is an extremist subset of Islamism. Some say the two are different tendencies of the current Islamic revival. The movements change over time. Leaders change their views. (One of the issues that got Khomeini involved in politics was the Shah's attempt to give women the vote which Khomeini thought was part of the war on Islam. Later, he dropped the issue completely and women played an important part in the Iranian Revolution.)

Here's is one guy's distinction:

"Three points clearly separate the Islamists from the fundamentalism of the ulamas:

• Political Revolution, "Islamists consider that the society will be Islamized only through social and political action: it is necessary to leave the mosque ..."
• shariah - "Islamist movement insists less on the application of the shariah than do the fundamentalist ulamas. Whereas moderates and neo-fundamentalists see the application of the shariah as a key to the Islamization of society, the radical Islamists, without questioning the principle of the sharia, tend to consider it more a project than a corpus." (Roy, p.38)
• issue of women. "Islamist generally tend to favor the education of women and their participation in social and political life: the Islamist woman militates, studies, and has the right to work, but in a chador. Islamist groups include women's associations." (p.38) "The Islamists' obsession is not that women should return of the home, but that the sexes be separated in public." (The Failure of Political Islam by Olivier Roy, translated by Carol Volk, (Harvard University Press, 1994) p.59

Democracy in Islam

I'm not an Islamist, but a Muslim nevertheless. From what I understand, if Islamism is defined as an extreme form of Islam, I can fairly say that Islam in general, believes in democracy. There are various quotes from the Quran that emphasizes the importance of knowing other people's opinions, and hence democracy. The Islamism article underlines that Islamism is against democracy. Can someone, who is more knowledgeable than myself, edit the article to reflect that Islamism is not against democracy, and this "Islamism is against democracy" is only a publicity stunt? Ramymamlouk (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) no the article doesn't define Islamism as against democracy. No, Islamism is not an extreme form of Islam its a modern political movement in Islam. The article gives about three different definitions of Islamism. Your interpretation of the Quran and democracy is your POV. The article is not about Ramyamalouk's interpretation of the Quran, its about the movement of Islamism. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section for defining Islamism that should help eliminate confusion as to what Islamism is or is not - it may need tidying up a bit... Jk54 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please bear in mind the wikipedia rules against original resarch and using somebody's blog. Sources have to be notable. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

March 3 Edits by Anon

Edits by 193.115.70.9 are messed up in a number of ways.

Islamism (Arabic: al-'islāmiyya) is a term that denotes various political ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also has something to say regarding political systems, is like saying socialism has something to say about how the government should influence the economy. What Muslim doesn't believe Islam has something to say regarding political systems?

There is undue weight given to Graham Fuller. A quote of his was included in the previous version of the lead deleted by the anon, but now there is a big blockquote by him. (Unless I am very much mistaken blockquotes in the lead are a wikipedia no-no.) Fuller is just one many experts on Islamism.

Consequently I am going to revert the lead with a few changes.

Please bear in mind this article has been worked on for years and the lead has become quite finely tuned to reflect the cross section of points of view in Islamism. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Islamism (Arabic: al-'islāmiyya) is a term that denotes various political ideologies"... I have yet to find any group that articulates Islam as a political ideology - that is simply POV. All of them articulate Islam as an ideology with a political dimension which is different from being a political ideology. Furthermore, there are sections missing which would have been expected - eg definitions of Islamism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't how commonly Islamists state that "Islam is an ideology". What Islamists are know to do is compare Islam to other ideologies, rather than religions, as in "We are not socialist, we are not capitalist, we are Islamic," and Islam "is rich with instructions for ruling a state, running an economy, establishing social links and relationships among the people and instructions for running a family;" rather than just "We are not Christians we are Muslims." This certainly reflect a belief in Islam as an ideology. This is not to say that if asked about this point an Islamist would not say something like "Of course Islam is superior to christianity as well. Islam is a complete system", but the comparison still stands. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please reread my point - Islamists do not claim Islam is a political ideology. Do one disputes the comparative analysis they undertake with other ideologies and relgions. Definitions from leading Islamists prove this point:

Al-Nabhani defines ideology (mabda'a) as “…a rational doctrine from which a system emanates. The ‘aqeedah (doctrine) is a comprehensive idea about man, life and the universe… As for the system that emanates from this doctrine, it is the solutions for man's problems, the method for implementing those solutions, preserving the doctrine and conveying the ideology to others.” These systems manage three relationships, individual (morality), creator (worships) and social (systems of life). Activists like Hasan al-Banna, wrote, 'we believe Islam is an all-embracing concept which regulates every aspect of life, adjudicating on every one of its concerns and prescribing for it a solid and rigorous order.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

June 4 Edits by Anon

69.149.83.224 has made edits to the Mawdudi section contradicting what was already there - whether Mawdudi was in favor of a Muslim Pakistan state - and adding a long blockquote. The problem is there are no sources given (and he messsed up the blockquote code). So I'm reverting it. -BoogaLouie (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Jk54

Jk54 please remember this is an encyclopedia. This is not blog for for disquisition on whatever comes to mind related in some way to the subject. The article is already very long. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of a definition is not a disquisition but quite necessary - please read the edits before commenting please. Jk54 (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This Article is nothing but OR

The article should state simply that Islamism is a Western term used to describe fundamentalist Muslims. The bulk of the article is far too long and makes 'Islamism' look like a coherent movement which as it doesn't actually exist is rather ridiculous. A point confirmed by the inclusion of Shia Hezbollah. 78.86.14.169 (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Al jazerra has used the term. are they western? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Delete Nons-sensical Article

This article is based upon a ludicrous disticntion. If anything the article should be merged with the Islam article. There's no such thing as "islamism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasabi salafi koonkati (talk • contribs) 09:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Islamists say Islamism is simply Islam, but not every Muslim agrees so we have this article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Page issues

There are a few POV points I tried to reword in my edit. The External Links also violate WP:EL. There ought not to be web logs and news articles, which don't provide a unique resource beyond the page. They can be cited for content, but it's not EL-like. Also I moved the organization a bit because the history/background should be near the top as its the first chronological step. Just after definition seemed okay, but if you disagree we can move it a bit. The 'history' part seemed right to follow the build up, but it wasn't quite 'history' in that sense. I just changed the title to 'specific' meaning 'specific examples.' That could probably be changed around. Lihaas (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with your deletion of the Martin Kramer article ( Coming to Terms, Fundamentalists or Islamists? Martin Kramer ) from EL section. The article has a geocities host and looks like it might be a blog, but it is originally from Middle East Quarterly (Spring 2003), pp. 65-77. Kramer is a legitimate academic and the article is quite interesting. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah! then we should cite it as from the journal. More reputable that way. Lihaas (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fis.jpg

The image Image:Fis.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:AKP Logo.png
• Image:Qutb.jpg
• Image:General Zia-ul-Haq.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to give fair use rationale. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

POV Violation

I put a tag on the article for a clear POV violation. The grand mosque seizure was called gross. It was not gross. Considering what the islams do to evreyone who is not a islam that was not gross. Plyhmrp (talk) Plyhmrp

I don't think that constitutes a need for the entire article to be marked for a POV violation. As for it being a "gross violation", maybe that qualifier isn't appropriate, but I think calling it a violation of a holy place, or holy tenants, is still appropriate. IMWeazel (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

First off people who believe in Islam are called Muslims not Islams. To answer your complaint, the people who make hajj to Mecca, the people who believe Mecca a holy site consider shootouts there a gross violation. It is not relevant to the article or anything else what people who don't like Islam or Muslim think violence in Mecca is not a "gross violation" of the sanctuary. Consequently I must remove your POV tag. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont care what islams are called. Its not gross. Period. Plyhmrp (talk)Plyhmrp

This is a discussion page, you discuss things. Please be civil. I feel that there can be a discussion about the use of "gross", perhaps another qualifier would be more appropriate, or it could simply be reduced to "a violation". IMWeazel (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Dont tell me what to do. Plyhmrp (talk)Plyhmrp

I'm afraid Plyhmrp is heading down a wrong road. And, guys, anyone who believes that they who practice the religion of Islam are called "Islams" are obviously very young; so we need to apply a certain (albeit small) amount of AGF towards this guy. No matter how P-[in]-C ignorant he is. Scarian^{Call me Pat!}