This is me just putting out some thoughts on Islamic terrorism and, more importantly, the word
Islamism - and I guess the entire topic is inspired by my paper (yes, I'm still writing it...on part two right now) and this course I'm taking on terrorism (with a focus on the Islamic type).
I've read quite a bit about the entire topic of Islamism over the past 2 months or so, and in all the papers and articles and books I've read, I haven't come across one definition of the word Islamism. It's used arbitrarily and constantly in these works, something that I find both troubling and problematic for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, on a policy level, if we want to 'combat' this particular radical movement, and on an academic level, if we want to analyze the increase in fundamentalism based on a radical interpretation of Islam, we need to understand what we're looking at first. If we neither define the term nor determine who constitutes an 'Islamist', how are we going to operate successfully on both the political and academic levels?
Tying into that, who are the Islamists? Are they the political leaders of parties like the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Islam in Pakistan? Are they the individuals who folow Osama bin Laden and are members of al-Qaeda? Are they the soldiers of Hamas? Are they the clerics around the world who have an anti-American bent and incite people to violent jihad and terrorism through their sermons?
On another level, can we really define Islamism properly? If we can't define Islam, how do we define Islamism? And I say this for a couple of reasons. If we look at contemporary Islamic society, we'll see that the
ummah - the concept of a transnational Muslim community - does not exist. There is no
emir-el-momineen (leader of the faithful) and no caliphate. Islamic society today is perhaps more divided than it has ever been - and I don't say this in a political sense.
Islam, as most know, is divided into three distinct sects: Sunnism, Shi'ism and Sufism. Furthermore, each of these can be divided into more factions. Let's look at the extremes within these sects. In Sunnism, on one hand, there are the ultra-radical Salafists and Wahhabists. On the other, there are the average Sunni Muslims who are, in all probability, quite peaceful and follow the non-violent and pacific verses and principles of the Qur'an and the religion. In Shi'ism, the distinction between radicalism and moderation is perhaps more pronounced. On one hand, there are the followers of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. On the other are the Nizari Ismailis, followers of the Aga Khan and perhaps the most pro-Western and moderate Muslims in the world today. Sufism, my favourite of the three, is perhaps the most varied and divided. Sufis usually follow a particular sheikh. As well, Sufism varies quite a bit in its method of practice. In Persia, many Sufis follow the teachings of Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi. In India, much of Sufi philosophy has blended with medieval Hindu spirituality, creating this absolutely phenomenal mixture.
So...again..if we can't define Islam, how do we define Islamism?
Why we need to/should define it next time. And the implications for policy-making the time after that.
That's it for now....
