[lit-ideas] Re: "Stand By Denmark" Rally
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:31:26 -0800
Wikipedia can be contributed to by anyone, it is therefore to be used with
caution as the sponsors of Wikipedia advise. I read the article Peter
Junger quoted and found I disagreed with some of it. Several of his points
are wrong according to the authors I've read (see a recent response to
Andreas and Mike for some of the major titles).
So I checked Wikepedia and the article I found didn't match the one Peter
Junger posted. Here is the one that came up when I asked for information
about Islamism: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist . I agree with the author of this
article almost completely (I might quibble a bit over the situation in
Turkey). I notice that he relies heavily on one of the authors I used,
Gilles Kepel whom I also appreciate.
Also, he quotes Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer both of whom argue that
there is a closer relationship between Islamism and Islam than moderates and
traditionalists like to assert. This is something I've noticed as well and
keep waiting for Moderates and Traditionalists to disabuse me of this
impression. Those who look for distance between Islamism and Islam will
have difficulty with these two authors. They both have articles in
FrontPageMag.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Peter D. Junger
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:38 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: "Stand By Denmark" Rally
"Lawrence Helm" writes:
: I have been studying Islamism off and on for about five years. Islamism
has
: become a technical term. It has a definition.
:
:
:
: If someone says, "moderate Islamist," I have no idea what that means.
: "Moderate" and "Islamist" are incompatible terms. The same applies to
: "Liberal" and "Islamist" These are also incompatible terms.
:
:
:
: I have defined Islamism on Phil-Lit, Theoria, and Lit-Ideas probably close
: to 100 times over the years. Why is it that when I do it now, you "don't
: understand this"?
But who cares how you define it?
Here is a definition from the Wikipedia which is a pretty good source
for finding the common meaning of terms:
Islamist is a term often used to refer to Muslims who are
fundamentalist in their theology and willing to consider political
organizing and/or violent action to bring about a world consistent
with that theology. Islamists often differ drastically on their
attitude to democracy, political party organizing, and the state
itself. There is for instance a large moderate Islamist party in the
majority in the Turkish government which favours strong alliances with
the European Union. And many small Islamist parties in other countries
] co-exist very well with non-Islamists and collaborate with them on
many issues, as other political parties do. There are anti-state
Islamists who organize small communities, both peaceful and more
warlike, and a few broad global revolutionary networks like Al-Qaeda.
Religion does not seem to provide more than rhetoric to some such
groups. But the rhetoric is powerful:
"Only Islamic values and morals, Islamic teachings and safeguards, are
worthy of mankind, and from this unchanging and true measure of human
progress, Islam is the real civilization and Islamic society is truly
civilized," Sayyed Qutb wrote in his influential book "Milestones."
Qutb was executed by Nasser in 1966 and became effectively the first
martyr to Islam as a political movement.
However, his influence on modern Islamists, even the Egyptian Muslim
Brotherhood he founded is much debated.
Like all religious labels, the term Islamist is subject to competing
interpretations. For instance Islamofascism, Islamonazism and the more
subtle Islamism are often claimed to be equivalents to Islamist,
though they smear a great many modernist, democratic and progressive
Islamists with far too broad a brush.
What Islamists have in common is a belief that Islam is very relevant
to political and social choices today. That is, they believe in Islam
as a political movement.
What aspects of Islam they are in favour of turning into law or
practice, however, vary extremely widely. The more radical Islamists
favour a broader and deeper program to be put into effect more
rapidly. This does not necessarily mean they seek to do so only by
violence. In most countries in the Muslim world, democracy is
relatively shaky and even with majority support, a movement might not
be able to win posts in government. Accordingly, they may advocate
protest or violence against the state only insofar as is required to
destabilize it to permit more popular means of selecting government.
This would, for instance, correctly describe many Iraqi Shia radical
Islamists who believe they would gain control of Iraq via majority
vote.
However, that is not to dismiss all Islamists nor even radical ones as
being unable to compromise or negotiate with minorities or
anti-Islamists in their midst. It would be as much of a mistake to do
this, as to assume that all Christians who take political positions on
matters based on the Gospels, belong to the same global conspiracy. By
such a standard, everyone Martin Luther King to Pat Robertson would
necessarily be in favour of the same policies and politics, which is
obviously not the case. Applying much stricter standards to another
religious or racial group than one's own is usually considered to be
racism.
Historically, Islamist factions have sometimes allied even with
Communists when oppressed by a common dictator. While these alliances
are often temporary the traditions are not entirely opposed, having in
common for instance notions of public stewardship and duty to
community that can be a good basis for serious dialogue about a
post-dictatorial government.
: This isn't about me. This is about the use of language. If someone wants
: to call himself a Moderate Islamist then he's going to have to explain
: himself, or I won't understand him because I have learned the common
: definition and no other.
Since you understand so little, and that for the most part incorrectly,
it hardly matters what dncorrect efinitions you claim to have learned.
And I fail to see why anyone should care whether you understand them.
--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
EMAIL: junger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: