Talk:Islamism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Arastu33

I would like to say that the word "islamism" is not correct,because islam is a religion and not an ism.--arastu (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

please read note at beginning of article: This article is about the political Islamic movement known as Islamism. For the religion of Islam, see Islam. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no such movement called political islamism, this term was coined by westerners as an insult against muslims imposing their ways of life, which was islam, over the colonialist way of life and rule. It would be as insulting as to call a Muslim "you Muhammadan". It would be expected that such a term be used by secularists who claim that islam has no place in politics yet the whole history of islam, and the beginning of the ummah, was about Muhammad applying the quran in both lay life and political life. Surely there are some individuals who recognize this fact, such as those who read The 100 by M H Hart. Faro0485 (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

please read note at beginning of article: This article is about the political Islamic movement known as Islamism. For the religion of Islam, see Islam. The article makes it very clear Islamism is not the same as Islam. As for the existance of "a movement called political islamism", (i.e. Islamism), it has been verified in numerous articles and books. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

mawdudi article retrimmed

mawdudi section retrimmed to a more original shape with a factual sentence moved from the main mawdudi article corresponding to his involvement in Pakistan movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.215.13 (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

rambling

Please bear in mind this is an encylopedia and not a user group cite for posting people's thoughts on islam, imperialism, the 3rd world, etc. With rambling remarks such as

However, this conjecture of Islamist movements shouldn’t be seen as a sign of a rejection of modernization. In this context, radical Islamic movements are reactions to the developmental crisis in the Muslim part of the Third World not a reaction to ‘over-development’. ...

(No one I know of and nothing in the article accuses Islamists of reacting to overdevelopment.)

Articles sould be about 30K or less and this one is already over 98. Consequently I'm going to trim edits made by lordleopold --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

perhaps some of the excess text could be added to articles such as

Main article: Justice and Development Party (Turkey)

the page has been vandalized it appears

the article has been deleted and replaced w/something else.... much ... shorter (?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.86.48 (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Page should be fixed now.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

radical islam incoming link

I noticed that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Islam links directly to the article about islam. Not sure if this is vandalism or just a bad link.Woods01 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Islamism in London

This used to be a separate article but after a vote it was moved here as a section. Wikipedia prevents it from becoming a separate article since the vote has been made against it. Trouble is, it's quite long, and this article is already too long. I'm going to summarize it and put a main article link to Londonistan (term)

Here's the summary --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

For those who object I suggest they create an Islamism in Europe article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material: "Islamic Flag"

Not only this so called "Islamic Flag" is out of place, but the whole description and meaning of it seem to be taken out of some B-movie involving a stereotypical plot about "terrism". Either provide sources that it is indeed an "Islamic Flag" and that the description is true, or it will be deleted in accordance to WP:NOCITE. --Kray0n (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Islamism should be subsumed under the "Left-Wing" category

According to the same principles of notability and common agreement as applied to nazism being right-wing - popular tendency is to put islamism on the left wing of the political axis, and because Wikipedia is not a matter of original research, this tendency should result in Islamism actually being counted as left-wing on Wikipedia as well. The argument can be lifted verbatim from the article about nazism being right-wing. Maybe someone who knows the system here better can make the required changes, although I can provide references to individuals calling Islamism left-wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.136.254 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood Subverted by Islamism

http://picpaste.com/warning-about-islamism-00ToI1QX.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.151.118 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Trimming

I trimmed this from the Islamism#Relation between Islam and Islamism section

Scholars like like Javed Ahmad Ghamidi have argued that all the actions of the Prophet Muhammad do not form an example for Muslims to follow, a sunnah. He holds that the da'wah (preaching and propagation) by a Messenger of God has targets defined by God and are specific to him. The role of the individual believer, the scholars and even a state with Muslim domination is different from that of a Prophet. The Prophet can after making the message clear to his addressees, under God's direction, fight the rejecters of the message. The Qur'an, after this stage in the Prophetic mission of Muhammad, did not leave the polythiests of Arabia with an option to live and adhere to polythiesm. They were to be executed if they did not enter Islam. This option is not available to any after the Prophet since no one can know who is rejecting the Message knowingly for no one is in a position to interact with God and no one receives revelation from Him.Political Canon of Islam

Reason: The article is already very long, the author is not particularly notable, and the text better belongs in Criticism of Islamism or Political aspects of Islam. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Central figures

An anon poster keesp adding Ismet Özel as a central figure of Islamism. He is an elected leader of a large country, but his he influential as an islamist? Does anyone have a source stating he is a central figure? In the mean time I'm deleting it again. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Whos saud Al Qaeda is Islamist, or have any relation with islam? Wikipedia in my eye is losing its respect, its so racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.110.121 (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Better Criticism Section Needed

Okay, this article is pretty dumb as it is. It should be linked with other racist and imperialist terms like Cracker and White Trash. The criticism section should not be a criticism of "Islamism" as a movement, which doesn't exist, but a criticism of the simpletons who coined this term in the first place. The word "Islam" itself means "submission". Sure, there are Islamic people -25 percent of the world, the world's fastest growing religion, etc.... But someone who subscribes to Islam is a "Muslim" -i.e., "one who submits". Okay, so some non-religionists and Christianists on Fox news and CNN use the term "Islamist" everday -doesn't mean its not a bigoted stereotype. This article should not be deleted, but should be put in the category of stereotypes and hate-speech. Remember, as Edward Said points out, there is a long history of purposivly mislabeling Muslims -who were for centuries called "Mohammedans", just as much of the media refused to call Cassius Clay by his real name Muhammad Ali. Lets rewrite the criticism section here and make sure readers know that this terms is a wilfull misrepresentation and not a description of anything at all. Teetotaler 5 January, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As the article says, al jazeera uses the term islamist. Are they simipletons and racists? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

African-Americans often use the term 'nigger' to refer to themselves, that doesnt stop the term from being an ethnic slur. Similiarly, al jazeera using the term islamist to refer to themselves doesnt validate the use of the term as a non-racist term. 203.128.4.254

What validates it's use as a non-racist term is that "Islamism" refers to a political movement, not a race. Aside from that do you think there is a difference between gangsta bad boy talk and one of the leading world news agencies? Do you think an influential political movement of Muhammad Iqbal, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Abul Ala Maududi, Sayyid Qutb, Hasan al-Banna, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, deserves a term to describe it? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

edits by 95.147.234.97 in lead

I deleted edits by 95.147.234.97 (and he has restored them) as they are unsourced opinions, the topic (of diversity in Islam and Islamism) is already covered, and the article is already very long. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Radical Islam

Why does Radical Islam redirect here? Is there no way to distinguish violent Jihadists and the poltics of Al Queda from other more moderate Muslims? Bachcell (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(I fixed your link.) Because someone created it as a redirect to here, plain and simple. Should someone wish to turn Radical Islam into a separate article from this one, possibly as an offshoot of this one, then it will be otherwise. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is racist, how come all the citations are from christian sources? HUH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.110.121 (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC) How about radical christianity and jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.110.121 (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If Islam is a universal and interracial religion, then it follows that any discussion, negative or otherwise, about it's spread throughout the world cannot be deemed "racist". Logic trumps bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gutumnbagem (talk • contribs) 09:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of Islamism

An editor can't pull out a quote by someone, and accuse the quote of being Islamist. A reliable source needs to have made that allegation.

This is the same as pulling a quote from Daniel Pipes, and putting it at Islamophobia as an example. A reliable source needs to have made the allegation.Bless sins (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bigotry" section

Amanisa please stop putting this section in the article.

NYT: Bigotry in Islam, The Islamic world represses women, spawns terrorism, is prone to war, resists democracy and promotes bigotry against Jews (anti-semitism) [180], The Daily Telegraph: Islamic bigotry, In revealing that violent, intolerant prejudice continues to be preached, even by women, in centres of "moderate Islam." [181] ....

This is an article about the political movement Islamism, not the religion Islam! Your text is not written in wikipedia format and not encyclopedic. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your edit war, it's highly relative. This is about 'Islamic activism' AKA Political Islam, AKA Islamism. It's written in encylopedic form, though some improvement can help...

Not sure I follow your real "objection"? Is it that you prefer us to insert this valuable information in the Islam page?

If you want more info about Islamic bigotry, we can provide more.

AmAnisa (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. Edits must be based on consensus. AmAnisa was bold[1] (a good thing). BoogaLouie disagreed with the edits (meaning that no consensus existed) and so reverted the edits, requesting that the suggestions be posed on the talk page. That, as far as I can tell, is where we stand. AmAnisa, I have reverted your edits; please take your ideas to the talk page. Let's please avoid resorting to dispute resolution.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 02:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Presently, AmAnisa's section on bigotry remains.

I object to the section for three primary reasons:

1. It is not, to my knowledge, a significant component of Islamism, which is political Islam. BoogaLouie is correct; the section addresses bigotry used in conjunction with Islam, not any component of Islamism. The section never addresses Islamism, failing even to use the term. The second sub-section even begins by introducing "Islamic bigotry". Meanwhile, the section fails to assert any relationship between Islamism and bigotry coupled with Islam.

2. Your edit is entirely non-neutral and seems dedicated to painting Islamism in an overtly negative light. The quotations are entirely opinion, and your section uses neologisms such as "jihadi". It reads almost like a this-is-why-I-think-Islam-is-bad section. I see no statistics, no facts, and no opposing perspectives.

3. The citations are garbage. Editorials and random blogs do not constitute legitimate sources. Thanks to your edits, I now know who Mark Humphrey is, but his opinion on Islam is not relevant to an encyclopedic article on Islamism. Neither is Christopher Hitchens's. With the possible exception of #197, not a single source is credible; they're all blogs and editorials.

If you verify the relevance of bigotry in Islam to the Islamist movement using reliable secondary resources, I'll help add a section on bigotry. Until/unless an clear link is demonstrated by a legitimate source, I think it should be removed entirely.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the sources are not reliable. Also, I don't see the sources accusing Islamists directly (they make broad comments about Muslims and Arabs). Perhaps, with a lot of caution, this material can be moved to articles about the authors (to show what the author's opinions are of radical Islam, bigotry, racism, Arab-Israeli conflict etc).Bless sins (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good. Some of the referenced authors have WP entries already, including Mark Humphrey and Christopher Hitchens, so their ideas on Islam and Islamism can be added there. Also, perhaps some the content, if properly cited, could be added to Criticism of Islamism. The new section has certainly trespassed on POV territory and does not comply with WP:CITE.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 06:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I don't see anything with criticizing the undisputed bigotry in Islam, that user did not post it in Islam, which makes it even more moderate and less contentious. If someone has a problem with markhumphrey, still doesn't make it unreliable. why do the pro-Islamism keep on in the edit war while no consensus was reached?190.122.171.58 (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like consensus HAS been reached...see above. --Alan (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

AmAnisa has been blocked as a sock of User:Toothie3. It wouldnt surprise me if this IP were the same user. nableezy - 23:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. 190.122.171.58's very first edit[2] was re-adding the bigotry section, which happened immediately after AmAnisa's block. Its second edit[3] was this comment. Its third edit[4] was re-adding the bigotry section, again. Looks awfully suspicious.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Request - Pakistan movement

This article does mention even smaller movements, but fails to mention the Pakistan movement and the resultant blood-soaked partition of India. Without doubt, Pakistan movement is one of the most quintessential pieces of islamism in all of history. I am not used to this editing stuff, so i request editors to please see to this. 117.204.80.116 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Christianism, Islamism, Judaism

Hi, fine to use term like "Islamism" and "Christianism" to represent political movements within these religions, if we do the same also for "Judaism", Buddhism", "Hinduism" etc.

However, you will notice that for other religions, the suffix "-ism" in no way carries a political connotation but rather describes the lump sum of religious content within the religion. E.g. Judaism (V. 13.10.2010, 12:12) "Judaism is the "religion, philosophy, and way of life" of the Jewish people." And Buddhism: Buddhism is a religion and philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices, largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha (Pāli/Sanskrit "the awakened one").

By contrast Islamism: "Islamism is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system, and that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically." And "Christianism" as above.

Shouldn't we be more consistent in application of the suffix "-ism"? And preferably use it only to apply to a body of religious content, as opposed to political movements, to avoid confusion.

To be consistent I have also added this discussion to the "Christianism" page.

There is criticism i Islamism, and radical Islam, but no criticism in radical christianity, or christianism, Wikipedia is so racist and annoying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.110.121 (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

--Musa Emre (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Musa Emre - I see point. Potentially someone with a negative POV regarding Islam wrote this lead. What you really have to do though is find a variety of reliable sources on this issue and see how they define the word. NickCT (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see Islamism#History of usage for clarification. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The English language is not always logical or consistent (Why "rapist" and not "raper"? Is rape an ideology with theorists?) The issue is that there is an ideology of Islamism and it needs a word, even if the people professing the ideology do not like the use of that word. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've restored a short paragraph in the lead that was deleted that contains the sentence "Islamism is a controversial term and definitions of it sometimes vary." --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Contested word

The terms Islamist" and "Islamism" are problematical because: --They are almost entirely used by outside critics and are not accepted by their target. Therefore they are not neutral terms. --They have no agreed on definitions --They are most often used with progandistic intent. Note the fact there is no term "Christianist" in common usage even though there is a similar (though much smaller) movement among Christians. This nonparallelism partly reflects the fact that speakers who use the term "Islamist" are overwhelmingly from Christianized countries. We do need a term for politically mobilized fundamentalist Islamic ideology, and unfortunately there is no alternative term that is in wide use. At the very least this article needs a separate section pointing out how problematic these terms is. The section on "relation with Islam" touches on these issues but has the wrong header for such a discussion. Burressd (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read Islamism#History of usage, comment above and revised lead for clarification. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hizb ut-Tahrir

We need citations as to which cou ntires this group operates in.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Weasel tag

WP:Weasel tag was added in September 2010 but ther has been no specific discussion of what problem it refers to ... unless you include complaints above (Christianism, Islamism, Judaism and Contested Word) about the term Islamism itself and there not being an eqivalent article on Christianism in wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Islamic fanaticism

Typed in "islamic fanaticism" and got redirected here... WTF???? --Spmoura (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no article yet about the 'green corridor' (in the Balkans)

Those possibly interested could base themselves upon this article written by Srđa Trifković ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr%C4%91a_Trifkovi%C4%87 ) at http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/05/green-corridor-in-balkans.html .

I'll also put a link to this suggestion on the discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr%C4%91a_Trifkovi%C4%87 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.208.90.139 (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Dialectical Logic of Islamists

Dialectical Logic of Islamists (i.e., of the Lost):

Dialectical logic is found in the core of Eastern and Western thought. It is a common flaw to the human species. Although the various human cultures have developed their own methods of using this flaw, it is not simply a cultural defect. However, since each culture uses this flaw to to defend and to define itself, every attempt to correct the flaw is perceived to be an attack on the culture itself. Islamists are particularly sensitive to this perceived attack; because the dialectical Absolute of the Koran is found in the attempt to synthesize the Old and New Testaments (i.e., "the Book"). --FinalNotice (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

updating needed

The article should include recent developments of the Arab Spring ... admittedly still in progress. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Does it really exist?

I found a text that questions the whole existence of islamism, saying that islam and islamism are actually the same thing.[5] I think that the source is not quite good enough, but once someone finds a better one, it could be included in the article as a criticism. A parallel: If someone heavily or even violently supports democracy, then is he a democraticist whose idea is democraticism, or is he simply a democrat? --Uikku (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Its as real as Christianism, i.e. no it doesn't really exist in any real sense. Yes people of the Islamic faith also form governments, and just like every other religion, their values system and moral framework influence their politics. Not that I think this article shouldn't be here. Wikipedia is all about hair thin distinctions and the separation of these isms comes from the secular crowd I think.Drunkenduncan (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

islamist is now a common and accepted designation for politically active religious Muslims

Islamism is a concocted term by various Orientalists, neo cons and Israelis. Islamists on the other hand which started out as a derogatory term has now changed and become normative for describing Islamic activists esp in Arab spring revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. This redirection to Islamism should be stopped and islamist should have its own page along with links to the islamic activists and movements involved in the Arab spring revolutions. For example islamist.com seems to be a pro islamist news web site (http://www.islamist.com/index.phphttp://www.islamist.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholetruth123 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

we have to have a reliable source WP:RS saying the term was "concocted by various Orientalists, neo cons and Israelis". The article does state that Islamism is a "controversial term", and it deals with the controversy:

The concept Islamism is controversial, not just because it posits a political role for Islam, but also because its supporters believe their views merely reflect Islam, while the contrary idea that Islam is, or can be, apolitical is an error. Scholars and observers who do not believe that Islam is a political ideology include Fred Halliday, John Esposito and Muslim intellectuals like Javed Ahmad Ghamidi.

Islamists have asked the question, "If Islam is a way of life, how can we say that those who want to live by its principles in legal, social, political, economic, and political spheres of life are not Muslims, but Islamists and believe in Islamism, not [just] Islam?" Similarly, a writer for the International Crisis Group maintains that "the conception of 'political Islam'" is a creation of Americans to explain the Iranian Islamic Revolution. In reality, apolitical Islam was an historical fluke of the "shortlived heyday of secular Arab nationalism between 1945 and 1970," and it is quietist/non-political Islam, not Islamism, that requires explanation.

On the other hand, Muslim-owned and run media (not just Western media) have used the terms "Islamist" and "Islamism" — as distinguished from Muslim and Islam — to distinguish groups such as the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria or Jamaa Islamiya in Egypt, which actively seek to implement Islamic law, from mainstream Muslim groups.

Another source distinguishes Islamist from Islamic "by the fact that the latter refers to a religion and culture in existence over a millennium, whereas the first is a political/religious phenomenon linked to the great events of the 20th century". Islamists have, at least at times, defined themselves as "Islamiyyoun/Islamists" to differentiate themselves from "Muslimun/Muslims".

--BoogaLouie (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I see many references in Islamic movements news and some literature referring to themselves as Islamist. I see none refer to their thinking as Islamism. Booga I checked all your references above except Abidullah Jan which the link was not working. The only mention of Islamism was in the International crisis group which is yet another neo con hydra and is not an Islamist or Muslim site. Booga, please clarify your terms and distinguish between the usage of Islamist and Islamism. Do not be evasive in referring to both while the citation only refers to Islamist. Booga could you give us some citations of Islamic movements referring to Islamism as an ideology?.

As a quick search for Islamist on Ikhwanweb.com via google generates 97,600 hits with numerous references in self descriptions of Islamic political parties identifying themselves as Islamist. Why Islamists Are Better Democrats - Ikhwanweb or Tunisia's Islamist Nahda Wins Impressive Landslide Victory

The term Islamist and Islamism are distinct and different. Islamist is how Islamic political movements describe themselves while Islamism is a term used primarily by their detractors. Therefore The wiki entry for Islamist should not be redirected to Islamism. Free speech and free debate should prevail.

Wholetruth123 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

islamist should not be redirected to islamism

@shadihamid Shadi Hamid I don't get why ppl have such a problem w- the word "Islamist." That's what (most) Islamists call themselves. There's no btr alternative.

Director of Research at the Brookings Doha Center & Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Shamid [at] Brookings.edu. Http://www.brookings.edu/experts/hamids.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.161.171 (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

English is a very hard language for non-native speakers. I will try to explain.

• Islamism is a noun for describing an abstract political concept - like national socialism or communism. Nobody would stand up and say, "I am a communism!", though they might say, "I am a communist."
• Islamist is both a noun and an adjective.

• As an adjective, it is correct to refer to islamist beliefs ("Islamist" being the adjective, and "Beliefs" the noun). There are also adjectives "national socialist" and "communist".
• As a noun, it refers to people. Someone can be a communist, or a national socialist, or an islamist. It is wrong, to use this noun to refer to an abstract political concept.

--Toddy1 (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Toddy, Thank you kindly for your lecture on basic English. I am a native speaker having grown up in Michigan. Kindly avoid such insulting comments. The term Islamism is a concoction used typically by various neo con think tank types along with various Orientalists. Islamist are Muslims who are active in the political arena. There is no such thing as Islamism as far as the Muslims are concerned. It is is simply Islam which encompasses both personal religious observations and societal obligations to establish equity and Justice (Islamic term ::Adl).

The redirect of Islamists to Islamism is similar to redirecting African Americans to nigger. It is highly biased and insulting. Complete depiction of the entire movement of political Islam (Islamist) using a term derived from their opposition (Islamism) is very biased and unbalanced.

Wholetruth123 (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. I had seen some of your comments and deleted contributions, and assumed that you were probably a Palestinian, for whom English was a foreign language, making edits in good faith. I see now that I was entirely wrong in my assumptions about you. Please accept my apologies.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Toddy, appreciate the kind word. I am trying in all good faith to get this redirect of Islamist to Islamism stopped and have an independent page for Islamist where it can cover some of the movements involved in the Arab spring revolutions. I strongly feel that many wiki readers would benefit from a frank look at the workings of Islamist parties in the middle east with both pro and con viewpoints clearly elucidated. The Islamism entry can stay and the debate on Islamism can stay as it is.

Which editor or editors can undo the redirect?

Wholetruth123 (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a pattern:

• Communist redirects to communism.
• Marxist redirects to Marxism.
• Socialist redirects to socialism.
• National socialist redirects to Nazism.
• Conservative redirects to conservatism.
• Capitalist redirects to capitalism.
• Islamist redirects to Islamism.

--Toddy1 (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So following your logic stupid should be redirected to stupidism?

Islamism is not an ism. On the other hand there are clearly people who are Islamists. Islamist generally describes politically active people following the Islamic faith. Islamism is like the term Mohammedanism which was constructed by 19th century orientalists looking to justify European colonial rules and policies. Islamism is a construct of the same modern day Orientalists as the old Imperial orientalists who coined the term Mohammedanism

Another way to explain it is to redirect Christ to Christism. Christism is an artificial construct and no Christians refer to themselves as following Christism. WT Wholetruth123 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC) And the N word simply means black. Same way a sombrero means a hat? The term Islamist is derogatory for Muslims. We don't like it. You cannot seperate the Rules of the Shariah from the lives on a Muslim. Granted that there are some Muslims that do not adhere to it totally but that does not mean that those who do are now "Islamists". It just means they are more practicing Muslims. I'm surprised this hasn't caused more of a stir yet. BrYounus (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This statement "In reality, apolitical Islam was an historical fluke of the "shortlived heyday of secular Arab nationalism between 1945 and 1970," and it is quietist/non-political Islam, not Islamism, that requires explanation" has no place in a Wikipedia article. Please remove it or provide evidence of the said condition. (A reference is not evidence.) SirteP (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Misleading title.

Islam by nature is political so why the need for Islamism title. Giftanodegiftanode (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is the portrait of Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani a file called "HypnoDude.jpg"

It looks like someone was messing around in photoshop and decided to make this guy trippy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flobee (talk • contribs) 04:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Problems and proposed move(s)

As many talk page commenters have pointed out, "Islamism" is a poorly-constructed category applied by outsiders with an ax to grind. The article itself needs major changes—for example, "history" comes quite late, after SNYTH-y seeming sections like "Relation with Islam".

How about focusing this article on the term "Islamism" and those who have created and used this term? The content related to political Islam could be moved to an article called "Political Islam" or merged with "Political aspects of Islam". At bare minimum, "political Islam" should redirect to the latter page. If you compare searches on Google Scholar, you will see how these terms are typically used in the scholarly literature—"Islamism" is used more often to describe European and European–American conceptions of political Islam.

Peace, groupuscule (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just jumping in quickly Islamism is a modern neologism , and that should be in the lead, there is no historical reference to it. While the thing that Islamism is trying to describe is an integral part of the Islamic religion. Hence from the POV of some it is like saying there is Islam and then there is the Hajj, and people who follow Hajj are called Hajjist. (if you see my point). Whatever -- I think it should be merged with Political Islam. Or explicitly stated (if not in the lead already that it is a Western look at the "other"/--Inayity (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Separation of religion and state is a modern concept, so historically there was no need to label those who rejected the idea. For Islam, the issue didn't even arise until Ataturk's reforms in the 1920s. Kauffner (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a subject of study and therefore should be treated like any other ideology. See for example the number of books on the subject by serious writers.[6] Of course its adherents do not call themselves Islamists and popular media misuse the term. However the same applies to many other terms used to describe extreme political positions.

TFD (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Islamism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islamism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "allamaiqbal.com":

• From Muhammad Iqbal: "Allama Iqbal – Biography" (PHP). 26 May 2006. Retrieved 2011-01-07. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
• From Pakistan: Iqbal Academy (26 May 2006). "Allama Iqbal – Biography" (PHP). Retrieved 7 January 2011.

Reference named "books.google.co.uk":

• From Democracy: Flyvbjerg, Bent, 2001, Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again (Cambridge University Press), p. 154.
• From Muhammad Iqbal: Schimmel, Annemarie (1962). Gabriel's wing: a study into the religious ideas of Sir Muhammad Iqbal. Brill Archive. pp. 34–45.
• From Abu Bakr: Atlas of the Prophet's biography: places, nations, landmarks, By Shawqī Abū Khalīl, Pg205

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits by ahmed

Deletion of citations

Why did you delete these citations without even an edit summary?? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"theodemocracy"

Edits by Ahmed 313-326 have, among other things, eliminated the term "theodemocracy" that Maududi used. There is plenty of evidence this concept was important to his ideas (see here) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Modudi never talked about "theodemocracy". In "Khilafet o mlookiat" he has condemned the whole idea of distinct institution of clergy in Islam. he was simply a Islamist democrat" not a "theodemocrat". --Ahmed 313-326 (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC) [pasted from Ahmed talk page]

Do you have any evidence "Modudi never talked about 'theodemocracy'"? Why do numerous authors say he did talk about "theodemocracy"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

it is a matter of meaning and understanding of word "theodemocracy". --Ahmed 313-326 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I imagine it is, but you are not arbiter of it. If we have numerous authors saying he used the term and/or using the term in explaining his ideas there is no reason to delete the term. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw this dispute listed at Third Opinion. This is not a third opinion, but just a question for Ahmed 313-326 with the hope that the matter may be made clearer for me or for someone else to give a third opinion. As BoogaLouie says, several of the citations connect the term to Modudi, and at least a couple of them directly attribute it to him, saying that he invented the term. Chasing down the footnotes in some of them, it appears that Modudi used the term in his book, The Islamic Law and Constitution. Ahmed, I'm afraid that I don't understand what you mean in your comments, above. It's not clear whether you mean that he didn't use the term — "Modudi never talked about 'theodemocracy'" — or whether you mean that he did use it, but his use of it is being misunderstood or misused — "it is a matter of meaning and understanding of word 'theodemocracy'". Could you clarify your position, please? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Although Google books provides only a snippet view of the article by Maududi, he uses the term "theo-democracy" (his quotes).[7] He appears not to have realized that the term was originally coined by Mormons. TFD (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

another unexplained deletion

While editors have been waiting for Ahmed to reply, he's gone and made another deletion (I should have caught before) here deleting a sourced sentence
It has been said of Sirhindi that he 'gave to Indian Islam the rigid and conservative stamp it bears today.'
.. and making no edit summary to explain why. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Take the quotations out the lead

There is no point to the quotations in the lead [of wikipedia], which have in brackets [to clarify the point]. If there is a ref, you can just state the points without the quotes. --Inayity (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

Should edits deleting the word "theodemocracy" -- describing the ideas of famed Islamist writer Abul A'la Maududi -- and deleting some other citations (with no edit summary) be allowed to stand.

As explained above, Mawdudi and numerous authors have used the word "theodemocracy" to describe his ideas.

History of issue

• Have brought the issue up on the talk page (see above). did not get much of response from the editor (User:Ahmed_313-326)
• Listed dispute at Third Opinion (april 21 or 22).
• A couple of people responded, one asking ahmed a question (april 22)
• Left notices on ahmed's talk page
• Ahmed did not respond again on the talk page but in the mean time made another edit deleting a sourced sentence (april 24, see above) and not giving an edit summary
• Posted the problem on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, ahmed was notified. No reply from him. Notice closed "Inactivity of Ahmed 313-326"
• ChrisGualtieri, who closed the dispute resolution case for lack of reply from ahmed, suggested I try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct but I wasn't sure it would qualify as it appears I am the only user whose clashed with ahmed in this particular issue.
• Since then Ahmed has been active and has gotten an edit warring notice
  --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• one other thing, one of ahmed's edits was reverted by User Doc Tropics May 13. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Responses

• Restore deleted edits (for reasons given above). --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Restore the content is verified to a source. If the individual wishes to dispute whether the source is an RS, they can begin a discussion at WP:RSN. If it is found to be reliable, keep the content; if it is not, remove the content or find an RS to verify the content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Restore I commented on this matter above. An editor claims that Maududi never used the term. But a snippet taken from an article by him shows that he did, although he placed it in quotes.[8] He does not appear to know that the Mormons had earlier used this term (why would he?) so we should not imply that he was using it in the same sense, unless sources say he was. TFD (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Restore with note - The term 'Theodemocracy' is a bit of a neologism, specifically attribute it to Abul A'la Mawdudi's writings and cite it with two notes, or even expand a full footnote to list the neologism as receiving considerable comment from third parties and identifying the idea as such. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Restore, though it doesn't really matter at this point, as consensus seems to have been reached. I do want to add that I thoroughly reviewed the RfC and details, though, and agree with the above opinions on the matter, in particular those of RightCowLeftCoast and TFD. No comment on ChrisGualtieri's note, as it isn't part of this RfC, but it is an interesting comment that's worth delving into . --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My comment is part of this RFC. Even a simple Google search shows the term being used and referenced back to Maududi/Mawdudi numerous times. I just wanted to make clear that because it isn't in a dictionary and their is an active dispute, citing it is a requirement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if my comments were interpreted to be an attack on your position. I viewed the issue as a separate (but still important) issue, but I see your point. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Restore. Seems legit to me. I agree with taking the issue to RSN, if there's a dispute over the source. Otherwise, it should stand. As a neologism, it should probably make an explicit statement of its notability, to prevent further misunderstandings from zealous editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

“Turkey - strong Islamist tradition” is this a WP:NPOV?

Since the time of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and the huge influence of Kemalist ideology on the formation of the Turkish Republic, Turkey has been widely considered the most secular majority-Muslim government in the middle east, and the government least influenced by Islamists. Reading this article, it appears to imply the exact opposite. -- Thebuscamebyandigoton (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Compare with Communist Poland - it had a secular government but a religious population. TFD (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

True, but I thought the definition of "Islamist" in this article was a Muslim who wants government to play some religious roles rather than having a purely secular government (as in Turkey). So I would think we should consider the majority of Turkey's population as devout practitioners of Islam but not Islamists. -- Thebuscamebyandigoton (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What does the role that the government played have to do with what role citizens thought it should play? TFD (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The voters of Turkey have voted to maintain the most secular and least Islamist majority-Muslim government in the middle east for about a hundred years. This is not consistent with the section's claim that Turkey has a strong Islamist tradition, therefore I don't think it is written from a NPOV. -- Thebuscamebyandigoton (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

And the voters of Poland voted to maintain one of the most secular and least Christian majority governments in Europe for about fifty years. TFD (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If there was a article that said "Poland has a strong Christianist tradition", then I think the NPOV of that article should be questioned as well. You get that many devout Christians are not Christianists, and many devout practitioners of Islam are not Islamists, right? -Thebuscamebyandigoton (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

We should ask what makes it "strong"? I suggest removing this. Liesbeth98 (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Copying the following from WP:Christianism for clarification -Thebuscamebyandigoton (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Christianism had various definitions over the years. It was originally defined as "the Christian religion" or "the Christian world", with cognates in languages like Spanish (cristianismo) or French (christianisme) retaining this meaning. In recent years, Christianism (or Christianist) has also been used as a descriptive term of Christian fundamentalists, mostly in the United States, for the ideology of the Christian right, meant as a counterpoint to "Islamism". Writing in 2005, the New York Times language columnist William Safire attributed the term (in its modern usage) to conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, who wrote on June 1, 2003 :

I have a new term for those on the fringes of the religious right who have used the Gospels to perpetuate their own aspirations for power, control and oppression: Christianists. They are as anathema to true Christians as the Islamists are to true Islam.

The liberal bloggers Tristero and David Neiwert used the term shortly after. Sullivan later expanded on his usage of the term in a Time magazine column. Uses of the term can be found dating back to the seventeenth century, but these are unrelated to its modern meaning.

There is no Christian equivalent of Islamism. The Christian Right for example do not plan to eliminate the U.S. federal, state and municipal governments, laws, borders, and citizenship. For example, to them Mexicans are foreigners, not "Christians" with the right to live and work anywhere within Christendom.

TFD (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Whither political Islam? (Lihaas (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)).

Excuse me

A Word About tide, discussants think unclear, indistinct, not prezies. That's why print with long sentences, kompleziert, little understood. Or, do it to blur the issue, do not talk interesting. Show Psy - Simptomen / Sorry /.1-CVH-420Peg (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Counter-response

I have flagged the "Counter-response" section as "dubious" insofar as it appears to confuse "Islamism" with "terrorism."* In my research, there is no indication that the USG has explicitly (or even implicitly) engaged in efforts to undermine political expressions of Islam (Islamism). The section was a bit too "post hoc ergo propter hoc" for Wikipedia. To be clear, the USG does does seek to counter violent terrorists who profess a faith in Islam, but does not (as far as I can tell) seek to counter Islamists or Islamism. The section does mention "violent Islamists," which is closer to reality, but the USG is still explicitly oriented toward "terrorism." It is below the usual standard of Wikipedia to conflate Islamism and terrorism without a much deeper discussion than what is included here.

• This also appears to have hidden the section, which was not my intent, but I am not savvy enough to know how to flag a section as questionable without hiding it entirely. I welcome changes by Wikipedia gurus that displays the section but notes my critique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TX Ciclista (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to Delete this article.

Do not feed the trolls. User warned.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Notice how the only people who use this word are white or work for the white media? (I'm white, btw, but this wikipedia and I'm a volunteer). Someone that is Islamic, like one of the countless Muslim genius's like Averroes or Avicenna or al-Khwarizmi, would not describe their work as "Islamist". When Muhammad Ali didn't want to fight against Vietnam, his pacifism wasn't Islamist. Sure, a true Muslim would not have supported or joined in the American war on Vietnam, but that is not called Islamism. Rather, Islamism is a word invented by racists and imperialists and is a form of Orientalism I hereby nominate this page for deletion. I'll be back. Teetotaler 27 July, 2014 Absolute rubbish. Islamism = political Islam. Who the hell was suggesting Muhammad Ali was an Islamist? Where does the page suggest that any "true" Muslim would of refused to serve in Vietnam? What in the name of the Prophet Muhammad's camels did you get the idea that Islamism is just some racist agenda? What about all the numerous non-white persons that use the term to describe political Islam - what about all the non-white apostates who live in the shadow of the sword of Islamism, who use the term? And don't bother coming back. You're not censoring wikipedia. And I honestly can't believe I'm bothering to reply to this BS straw man-ridden comment. FYI - Criticizing certain Muslims for their political agendas is not racist. Criticizing Islam is not racist.--Somchai Sun (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC) (Personal attack removed) - Teetotaler 31 July, 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Unneeded tags

Why do we need tags
(example: Some observers suggest Islamism's tenets are less strict, and can be defined as a form of identity politics or "support for [Muslim] identity, authenticity, broader regionalism, revivalism, [and] revitalization of the community".)
when a citation is given? It seems like an excuse to mess up the article.

Here is a example of even worse use:

In this context, the publications of Jamal ad-din al-Afghani (1837–97), Muhammad Abduh (1849–1905) and Rashid Rida (1865–1935) preached Islamic alternatives to the political, economic, and cultural decline of the empire. Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida formed the beginning of the Salafist movement, as well as the reformist Islamist movement.

Their ideas included the creation of a truly Islamic society under sharia law, and the rejection of taqlid, the blind imitation of earlier authorities, which they believed deviated from the true messages of Islam. Unlike some later Islamists, Salafists strongly emphasized the restoration of the Caliphate.

A sentence talking about Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida forming a movement is followed by a sentence using the pronoun "they" ... which is tagged with .
I ask you good people, who reading this is not going to make the obvious assumption that "they" refers to Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida? what reason can for their be for the tag except to make the article look bad to the casual reader? --BoogaLouie (talk)

--BoogaLouie (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad?

Is prophet Muhammad a Islamist too? He was political by establishing the first Muslim state in Medina. Was prophet Muhammad a central figure in Islamism, should we include that into the article? Moorrests (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Information in articles must present what reliable conclude, not our conclusions. TFD (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Moorrests, the question isn't whether we think Muhammad was an "Islamist", it's whether we can demonstrate that using reliable sources. It's not appropriate to stick his name into a sourced statement based on our own reasoning, suggesting the source says that when really it's our own original research. EastTN (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Political aspects of Islam and Islamism?

Can somebody explain to me what is the difference between these two articles Political aspects of Islam and Islamism? Aren't they talking about the same topic. Shouldn't they be merged? Moorrests (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

History, Jamal ad din al afghani

Jamal ad din afghani is not the originator of Salafism. His movement used the word salafi but now what is known as salafism today was established by the Wahhabi movement.The salafi movement is known today as Islamic modernism.It ispired the Contemporary islamist movements.

As for contemporary Salafism.It is the state religion of Saudi Arabia is according to Stephane Lacroix (a Postdoctoral Fellow and Lecturer at Sciences Po in Paris)

" As opposed to Wahhabism, Salafism refers here to all the hybridations that have taken place since the 1960s between the teachings of Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and other Islamic schools of thought. Al-Albani’s discourse can therefore be a form of Salafism, while being critical of Wahhabism"

(ref: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/17210/ISIM_21_Al-Albani-s_Revolutionary_Approach_to_Hadith.pdf?sequence=1 , page-2)

and according to Dillon, Michael R:

" Salafism of 19th century under such key figures as Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Abdu, and Rashid Rida, which were referred to as Islamic modernists. Their form of Salafism was fundamentally different from contemporary Salafism

(ref: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a509109.pdf , page-33)

The confusion you are facing can be understood from below qoute:

" There has been some confusion in recent years because both the Islamic modernists and the contemporary Salafis refer (referred) to themselves as al-salafiyya, leading some observers to erroneously conclude a common ideological lineage. The earlier salafiyya, however, were predominantly rationalist Asharis. During an interview in Jordan, one Salafi emphasized this distinction by citing Muhammad Abduh’s interpretation of the jinn, a creature referenced in the Qur’an. According to this respondent, Abduh’s understanding of the jinn as microbes or germs demonstrates his rationalist credentials: not only does it indicate a metaphorical approach to the Qur’an, but it also implies the influence of the West on his thinking.17 Muhammad Abduh and other similar thinkers are frequently excoriated as deviant rationalists. Some go as far as to claim they were British agents, planted to specifically undermine the purity of Islam."

(ref: http://archives.cerium.ca/IMG/pdf/WIKTOROWICZ_2006_Anatomy_of_the_Salafi_Movement.pdf ,Page-212)

Many more proofs can be found

Ejaz92 (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"Islamic extremist groups" redirect page

@Heroeswithmetaphors: I noticed that you redirected "Islamic extremist groups" to this page. Is there any distinction between Islamism and "Islamic extremism"? Jarble (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not that I know of. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 16:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Heroeswithmetaphors: Why does Islamic extremist groups redirect to Islamism instead of Islamic extremism? Jarble (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 00:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Examples of groups and parties

People seem to be very inclined to removing parties or groups they don't perceive as extremists or terrorists from the list near the bottom of the article. Are we listing Islamic extremists and terrorist groups? If yes, the list does not belong in this article because this article doesn't define Islamism as the same as Islamic extremism. Or are we listing organisations which fall into the definition of Islamism as put forth in this article (even the moderate interpretations like Moderation and Development Party in Iran and Justice and Development Party (Turkey) (AKP))? I just added an intro sentence for that section defining exactly what we're listing, but wanted more discussion before adding more groups. If a lot of people disagree with me that we should add AKP and MDP and other theocratic parties here, I think the definition of Islamism should be made far clearer in the article, since those two groups use Muslim identity politics to gain power, or have been widely described as such by others. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of Arabic and Urdu characters.

Inasmuch as this is an English Language article, why do we have Arabic and Urdu characters in the introduction without including their English (Latin Alphabet) transliterations? This is typically done for foreign alphabets such as Greek. For example, in the Wikipedia article on Christ, the title is followed by the Greek source "ριστός", which is then Anglicized as "Christós". English speakers cannot ordinarily be expected to understand these entries without an Anglicized translation or transliteration. I am not suggesting that those non-English characters be removed, as they present valuable subsidiary information, however, it would be helpful to the reader should a competent editor add an English, i.e. Latin alphabet, transliteration. Tresmegistus (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A new "Prevalence" section?

Hello.

I have found various surveys that examine the views of Muslims around the world regarding different issues, including how many that prefer a system of Sharia law and its various applications.

Of particular interest was a survey in 2013 from the highly respected PEW Research Center, which had performed interviews with 38000 Muslims in 39 different predominantly Islamic countries.

http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

I believe that it is in the public interest, and in line with Wikipedia's ideal role as an unbiased fact-based educator, to showcase the relevant information matter-of-fact without any distortions.

Thanks in advance for any help. David A (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Help and input would be very appreciated. David A (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This survey is being used in Apostasy in Islam and Sharia, though I'm not sure how it would be used here. Eperoton (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, we could check through it for the average percentages that support Sharia, and its more severe applications. I also have links to several more statistical surveys, but this one is the most thorough and prominent that I know about. David A (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a list of survey results that I googled. The larger page itself is obviously very biased, but the linked opinion poll statistics seem useful and matter of fact regarding how large percentages that hold different extremist beliefs: http://www.thereligionofpeace .com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx David A (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

A cautious discussion of surveys on some issues associated with Islamism elsewhere in the article (especially Pew's sections "Islamic Political Parties" and "Religious Leaders’ Role in Politics" ) seems to be appropriate. I'm not sure about discussing Sharia support. As Pew's chapter illustrates, this is a complex subject, and it may be better left to the Sharia article. The other site seems to have mostly surveys on violence. I would also suggest naming the section "Surveys" or "Opinion polls". Islamism is more like socialism than catholicism in that a person may shift their opinion on these issues without a major change in their identity, hence "prevalence" sounds odd. Eperoton (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. That sounds sensible. Would you be willing to help out to sift through what may be relevant to include in such a section? I am not a scholar after all. I just read some articles citing PEW's survey, saw some videos by the Clarion Project, turned worried, and think that it seems to be in the public interest to know about the more reliable matter-of-fact statistics. David A (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not exactly a scholar either, but I play one on WP. :) I'll try to review how this article defines the nebulous notion of Islamism and how Pew formulated their questions. Eperoton (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the help. If you wish, feel free to check through the list of surveys as well. David A (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A question: Would it be more appropriate if I write a "statistical surveys" section for this page instead? David A (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Boznia/Herzegovina

Santasa99 deletes cited material saying that BH is an islamist state, with this comment: "(really, what should we quote, 2 obituaries as refs? 1 contradicting other - Editors need to prove its verifiability & notability WP:UNDUE ! not to mention, even if not contradictory, obituaries r insufficient for such claim of profound consequences.)"

Santasa99: Are you saying that BH is not an islamist state, and that is why you are deleting this material? Or are you deleting it because its inclusion gives WP:UNDUE weight to the source, even if the claim is true?

I have the impression that you have a dog in this race - most of the edits you've made seem to be related to former Yugoslavia. Are you pushing a POV?

FWIW, I will now give up here - I don't have time for wikipolitics, I'm not interested in wiki lawyering. I just try to make small improvements when I see defects in articles. MrDemeanour (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Philosophical Implications of the Terms Islamism and Islamists

As has been noted in the section "Relation to Islam" Islamism is a controversial term. One could even argue that it is a typically Eurocentric colonialist term which prescribes Muslims the nature of their belief: On the one hand there is the good Islam, on the other hand and there is evil Islamism. This implies a philosophical question: Is Evil an essential part or the basic nature of Islam, as asserted by its critics? I do not know whether there has been done any serious - non-polemical - philosophical research on an academic level on this topic, but to me it seems clear that the answer to this question will be of prime importance for political decision making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.59.132 (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Islamism is defined as the political agenda to instill theocratic Sharia law as completely dominant, and above secular and democratic political systems. David A (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but why is this political agenda not called Islam by western thinkers? The point is it is called Islam by those Muslims westerners call Islamists. What if we follow the logic of Islamists and view Islamism as true Islam and what western thinkers call Islam as an 'impure' Islam 'contaminated' by Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment values? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.59.132 (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note that WP is not a discussion forum (see WP:NOT#FORUM). Article talk pages are there for the sole purpose of discussing how to improve the corresponding article in accordance with WP policies. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Eperoton, I think that the article needs a chapter on the philosophical implications of the term Islamism, because every term has this kind of implications. So far the article empirically traces the history of the term and the controversies around it. However, the article does not yet describe the different philosophical backgrounds and prerequisites of its history as well as the controversies. I argue for introducing a deep structure into the article in a way a New Historicist would do it. This simply is the current academic standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.59.132 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Article content has to be backed up by reliable sources (WP:RS). If you're aware of academic sources dealing with this subject, you're welcome to summarize them in the article. Eperoton (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I will do some research on this, but it will take some time. Methodologically I suggest the following: Since Islam came about (and until at least its classical area) developed within an predominantly Christian, Jewish, Gnostic and Pagan environment the first question to ask will be what is genuine about Islam? Does Islam have anything Christianity, Judaism, Gnosticism and Paganism do not have? If yes, is this genuine Islamic core what westerners call Islamism or is it what they call Islam? And what did the inventors of the term Islamism do with this core? If, on the other hand, Islam will turn out to be a 100% composite or patchwork religion the question will be why did the inventors of the term Islamism choose certain patches of Islam to be Islamistic and others to be Islamic? What is the agenda behind this? I do not know yet to what extent this kind of interreligious research has been done on Islam and the Qur'an. But I will find out. One thing is sure since these kind of questions are hotly debated for about 200 years now with regard to Christianity and Judaism (leading authorities being here for instance Peter Machinist from Harvard regarding the Hebrew Bible and the late Martin Hengel from Tubingen regarding the New Testament) the Wikipedia article will not deliver a final answer. Does anyone know who the leading authority for research on the Qur'an and Islam within their Christian, Jewish, Gnostic and Pagan backgrounds is? To my knowledge David Nirenberg from Chicago currently is dealing with these kind of issues in his research project "History as Prophecy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.59.132 (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Good places to look for current academic authorities on Islamic origins are Brill's Encyclopedia of the Quran and the Qur'an Seminar at Notre Dame. Just be sure you're aware of WP's no original research policy and particularly its editorial synthesis section. Eperoton (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have done some bibliographic research and come to the conclusion that it is not yet possible to deal with the philosophical implications of the term Islamism on an academic level. While there are a lot of opinions of writers, journalists, reverends, politicians, etc. out there on the topic, all of them biased, I have found almost nothing that meets academic standards. The only exception are the publications of the German orientalist Tilman Nagel. However, almost nothing by Tilman Nagel is translated into English. Tilman Nagel is a well known critic of Islam as well as an open freemason. In order to be able to deal with his research one needs to know Islamic sources in their original languages. Since I am not able to read Arabic, etc. I will not write about the books and articles of Prof. Nagel. However, he would be a starting point, even if one does not agree with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.59.132 (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sex segregation

Sex segregation is the bloodline of Islam/Islamism.--98.88.130.250 (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That may very well be, but you need to insert references. David A (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Also it is not, it is one fascite of Islamism. In fact Islamism is a morally and socially conservative fundamentalist take on Islam, of which Gender segregation (and Islam is not alone in this) is part (bit not the whole).Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

New improperly sourced definition

Per WP policy (WP:V, WP:NOR), to be added here, a definition has to match the phrasing given by some reliable source. It does not seem to appear in any of the citations. If you believe it does, please quote below the exact passage where it appears. Adding more citations that do not support the added content does not help you meet WP policy, so please stop trying to readd improper citations that have already failed verification. Eperoton (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Definition

The body of the article has a reasonably extensive discussion of the diverse uses of the term "Islamism", but the lead doesn't do a good job summarizing it. The definition right away makes the misstep of asserting that Islamism is a "movement", when it is rather a term that is used with various meanings and can refer to many different movements. I'll start by replacing the definition, which is sourced to weak tertiary sources, by a summary of tertiary sources which are also secondary (i.e., written by academic specilists - see WP:PSTS). Eperoton (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Column piece

@2A1ZA: It's not clear what the "Generally speaking" in the source refers to, but there's no indication that it refers to "Western media". Please explain 1) why you think we should highlight an opinion column, which is not a WP:RS; 2) what value it would add to all the definitions we already have in that section. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The term "Islamism" has a pretty sharp meaning/definition in general Western media usage

@Eperoton: The term "Islamism" has a pretty sharp meaning/definition in general Western media usage. I am not sure why you object to stating this in the lead, but an intro suggesting that "nobody really knows what the term means, its usage must be some form of racist hate against Muslim people" is contrary to well sourced reality and misleading. And even if you passionately wish to defend the lead as you made it against such statement of the pretty sharp meaning/definition in general Western media usage, then at least move it to the text body instead of blank deletion. I will re-insert, with this source that is fine or with more, if I quickly find one of the many around. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@2A1ZA: It looks like you've missed my comment above. Here it again: It's not clear what the "Generally speaking" in the source refers to, but there's no indication that it refers to "Western media". Please explain 1) why you think we should highlight an opinion column, which is not a WP:RS; 2) what value it would add to all the definitions we already have in that section.

Please read the lead again. It has nothing in common with your characterization. It discusses various uses of the term: more general, more specific, media trends and related terms. The Definitions section illustrates the broad range of its usage. What you're trying do here is highlight your preferred definition (which is not even properly sourced) in violation of WP:NPOV. Eperoton (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I did read the lead again. Without the clarification, I read what I perceive as implying the term has no clear and sharp meaning in general media usage, and in context insinuating that its usage must be some form of racist hate against Muslim people. In my well reasoned and sourced view, that is contrary to well sourced reality and misleading. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The source says nothing about this being a western media thing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I happily added an additional source, an Washington Post piece which is all about "What do we mean by ‘Islamist’?". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Where does it mention the west?Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I am abolutely fine with deleting the term "Western". I just added it because discussions with Islamists usually end with the compromise that this term must be inserted, so I did this from the beginning to spare all of us lifetime. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If it's not a statement about Western media usage, then it's just repeating what the paragraph has already stated: "movements which call for full implementation of sharia [...] commonly used interchangeably with the terms political Islam". Eperoton (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My problem with your version is exactly this sentence:

The term can refer to diverse forms of social and political activism advocating that public and political life should be guided by Islamic principles,[1] or more specifically to movements which call for full implementation of sharia.

This sentence suggests that the adjective "Islamist" would be widely used other than with reference to a political Sharia law agenda. And this suggestion is not true. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't make any assertions about wide usage, it summarizes what the cited source says. Why don't you click on the link and read it? It's right there in the first paragraph. Likewise, from The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World: "Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and especially since the 9/11 attacks, the term has often acquired a quasi-criminal connotation close to that of political extremism, religious sectarianism, or bigotry. In Western mainstream media, “Islamists” are those who want to establish, preferably through violent means, an “Islamic state” or impose sharīʿah (Islamic religious law)—goals that are often perceived merely as a series of violations of human rights or the rights of women. In the Muslim world, insiders use the term as a positive reference. In the academic sphere, although it is still debated, the term designates a more complex phenomenon. However, the functionality of the distinction between a positive “Islam” and a possibly sectarian “Islamism” is limited, since the border between the two is not clearly defined." Please stop trying to insert your preconceptions about what is and isn't true and concentrate on summarizing the generalizations made in standard references, as required per WP:NPOV. Eperoton (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

In Western mainstream media, “Islamists” are those who want to establish, preferably through violent means, an “Islamic state” or impose sharīʿah (Islamic religious law)

This is exactly what the sentence you are fighting against says. I will happily add this source to the sentence, which you yourself declared as most reliable now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, it looks like instead of trying to get consensus as you're required to do per WP:ONUS, you're doubling down on OR, now synthesizing definitions from select media source into your own generalization about "media". I'll add another tag for now, but without policy compliance and consensus, this is going to be removed before long. Eperoton (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not "synthesizing", I am adding more sources which all say literally the same thing. Literally. Read them. Please do not make me doubt your good faith. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

To make a generalization about "media", you need to cite a RS which makes that generalization. Please point me to the part in your citations where the generalization about "media" is made. Citing a couple of specific definitions and turning them into your own generalization violates WP:SYN. Eperoton (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

From the OED

Islamist NOUN

An advocate or supporter of Islamic militancy or fundamentalism: ‘radical Islamists’

ADJECTIVE

Relating to, advocating, or supporting Islamic militancy or fundamentalism: ‘hardline Islamist groups’ ‘Islamist ideology’

So, no, it is not just about Sharia law.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

We should not use opinion pieces as sources for facts per "News organizations." It seems that the Turkish premier objected to the term "Islamist terrorism." Note that the Obama administration never used the term "Islamic terrorism." But that does not mean he objected to the term Islamist. The observation that Islamists seek sharia as a political system is confusing. Sharia is the legal system in most Islamic nations. The controversy lies in how to interpret it. Under common law for example, witches were burned at the stake, but that does not mean advocates of common law necessarily support that punishment. Sharia means among other things that interest cannot be applied to debts. TFD (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The Associated Press Stylebook, one of the sources, certainly is not an "opinion piece", but rather the most serious and reliable reference for media usage of a term. And it clearly says: No Sharia law based government, no Islamism. And as to your other point, this is not about any random Sharia law, but about Sharia as the legitimizing constitution of the political and legal system. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you're ignoring this comment above: To make a generalization about "media", you need to cite a RS which makes that generalization. Please point me to the part in your citations where the generalization about "media" is made. Citing a couple of specific definitions and turning them into your own generalization violates WP:SYN. Eperoton (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no WP:SYN involved. For example the Hurriyet sources most explicitly states the generalization about "media". I will happily in the coming hours add more perfectly reliable sources which make this generalization about "media" in the most possible explicit form. And as the fact is so obviously true with so many most reliable sources which make exactly this explicit generalizing claim about "media", it will be my pleasure. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The Hurriyet (which as an opinion piece may not be RS) does not say this is a media usage.Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not mind saying in the lead that some people do not like the term, provided that is true and we can source it, specifying which people, but the lead is mostly about that. And it is not a "neologism" any more, but a generally used term. Of course it is vague where mainstream Islamic politics ends and Islamist politics begins. The Saudis practice inhumane punishments for example but are not Islamists. TFD (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't personally comfortable with using the term "neologism" myself, but this was how the cited Islamism article from the 2015 The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics defined it. Given that I haven't come across other RSs using that designation, I think there's a rationale for removing it as giving undue weight to that source, authoritative as it is. Eperoton (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@2A1ZA: You're welcome to look for additional sources, but this is getting silly. You'll actually need to convince someone that you're using the sources properly. You've been given slack in letting you keep the disputed passage in a very prominent spot while the discussion was going on. With opposition from three editors and no support, I think it's safe to say that you haven't gotten consensus for that passage with current sourcing. The passage I quoted, which you're referring to above (you've added the wrong ref, by the way), doesn't support your formulation either, since it emphasizes the negative connotations of media usage, and was already summarized in the paragraph as "implying political extremism". Instead of just removing your addition, I'll do my best to extract from your comments above what seems to be a valid concern about the current summary of the available sources. It is that we could do a better job distinguishing the broader and more neutral sense of Islamism (roughly equivalent to Islamic activism) used mostly by academics and Muslims, from the range of meanings used in the media, which is not necessarily precise (as illustrated by AP's efforts to rein in the loose usage of their reporters), but generally excludes more "moderate" groups. I'll rewrite the end of the paragraph to reflect it in more detail. Eperoton (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)