Beginning of the end for political islam?

[CyberRose]

Are you only quoting part of a sentence?

Would it change the context if I did?

 

[ViolentPanda]

also; The Shah's support base was narrow and flakey, once people lost their fear of his heavies, he was doomed

Plus the Ayatollahs eventually got wise to his tactic of partial appeasement, and some withdrew their support.

 

[tangentlama]

Would it change the context if I did?

Well yeah, because a very tiny minority in political Islam are pro-womens rights. Some are pro-women in mosque movements, which may eventually lead to mixed congregations, over years. At least one mosque in UK does not practice segregation (nothing in Qu'ran to uphold segregation either) - these are cultural aspects depending on origin of people who have formed the mosque community. So yeah, if you miss out the word 'eventually', then you lose the context of what I wrote. In the long term, we shouldn't exclude the prospect for political Islam to be very different in west or Islamic countries where women want equal rights.

 

[Streathamite]

So the Iranian regime started out as Political Islamists and now they are mere Islamists?

Nope, they were and are islamists, whio siought to translate the moral and personal doctrin of the Qu'ran into a wider social and political sphere, as they do today.

The Taliban were Political Islamists, transformed into Islamists, and are now Political Islamists again?!
100% PI all the way through

Could you tell me if Hamas or Hizballah are Political Islamists or just ordinary Islamists?

same as the Taliban, but with far less chance of getting anywhere

 

[ohmyliver]

um shouldn't that be "the moral and personal doctrin of the Qu'ran and the hadith".. as most islamicist ideology and arguement seems to use hadith more than qu'ran

 

[dylans]

surely the point is that not all islamists embrace Political Islamists: political islam is an anti-state, anti-capitalist, revolutrionary varient of the form.
In A to the Q; the fall of the warsaw pact and the USSR, and the communist decline, has nothing to do with the rise and fall of Political Islam. The first was due to economic decline and about States, the second is a far more revolutionary movement

That is utter rot. The fall of the soviet union left an ideological vacuum that, in countries whose culture is amenable, was filled with political islam.

Make no mistake. The Iranian revolution was the last great revolution of the twentieth century. As the Russian revolution sent shock waves around the world and inspired millions, so did Khomeini's revolution.
Whereas, in cold war days, the Soviet Union and communist ideologies inspired and gave answers to the oppressed in the ex colonial countries. Vietnam, Cuba, mozambique for example, so too, Islamic militants win the respect and support of people in The West Bank, Lebanon, Gaza. This is why, the Arab world trembled and tried to crush it.

You are wrong. The Islamic Revolution gave answers and inspiration that once would have been given by socialists .

It argued that secular arguments had failed and pointed to the Soviet Union.

It pointed to the humilation of Arafat, Saddam Hussein and secular Arab nationalism and said "see, this is what secular, leftist arguments have led to."

It pointed to the corruption of Kuwait, Saudi and the gulf states, and said revolution in the name of God. It gave answers to class questions bathed in Islamic ideologies. Whereas once, class arguments would have had a hearing (and did in Syria, Egypt in the PLO etc) It replaced the left in the hearts and minds of oppressed people. That is a direct result of the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

[CyberRose]

Well yeah, because a very tiny minority in political Islam are pro-womens rights. Some are pro-women in mosque movements, which may eventually lead to mixed congregations, over years. At least one mosque in UK does not practice segregation (nothing in Qu'ran to uphold segregation either) - these are cultural aspects depending on origin of people who have formed the mosque community. So yeah, if you miss out the word 'eventually', then you lose the context of what I wrote. In the long term, we shouldn't exclude the prospect for political Islam to be very different in west or Islamic countries where women want equal rights.

What difference did the word eventually make? None. You're saying that you think Political Islam will come to champion women's rights at some point in the future (the word eventually does not change that expressed opinion other than to give an indicator of the timescales involved) - and I still think that's a piss take

And what you describe above is Islam, not Political Islam (unless that UK mosque is Islamist, is it?)

 

[CyberRose]

Nope, they were and are islamists, whio siought to translate the moral and personal doctrin of the Qu'ran into a wider social and political sphere, as they do today.



same as the Taliban, but with far less chance of getting anywhere

Please explain to me the difference between Islamist and Political Islamist

 

[JHE]

Please explain to me the difference between Islamist and Political Islamist

'Islamism' and 'political Islam' are synonymous.

Confusingly, however, some people try to use the two terms differently in order to distinguish different strands within Islamism.

 

[CyberRose]

'Islamism' and 'political Islam' are synonymous.

I know that! I'm trying to find out what exactly everyone else is going on about, I mean, even the SOAS says they are the same (and trust me, they should know!!!)

Political Islam, also known as Islamism, is an increasingly important force in Muslim majority countries and regions of the world, within Muslim communities in western states, and at the level of global politics.

http://www.soas.ac.uk/business/interface/political_islam/

 

[Streathamite]

Please explain to me the difference between Islamist and Political Islamist

have to log off soon, but will do so in the morning. Suffce to say, there is huge disagreement within the worlds of both Islam and Islamism, as to how much the two coincide, and where they diverge.

 

[CyberRose]

The wiki article quote doesn't say that at all - it clearly differentiates violent internal differences within Islamism along the lines that i'd previously indciated and it used Olivier Roy, the foremost developer of the concept of Political islam as opposed to simple islamism, as also used by me above. A little quote from the man himself:

A book I wrote fifteen years ago is entitled The Failure of Political Islam (not, it should be noted, The Failure of the Islamists).

You should be aware that the above quote uses the word "Islamists" not "Islamism". It doesn't say Political Islam and Islamism are different, it actually says that Islamists are adherents of Political Islam.

The article that quote came from also doesn't differentiate between Political Islam and Islamism (indeed Political Islam is only mentioned in the title, the rest of the article refers to Islamism or Islamists).

http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/islamism_4043.jsp

Unfortunately I haven't read Roy's original book so perhaps you'd like to correct me, but the index has no mention of either Islamism or Political Islam, suggesting they are one and the same (ie the theme of the book), it certainly would be strange to omit the terms from the index if he makes a special point about differentiating between them...

 

[CyberRose]

have to log off soon, but will do so in the morning. Suffce to say, there is huge disagreement within the worlds of both Islam and Islamism, as to how much the two coincide, and where they diverge.

Eh? I didn't ask you to differentiate between Islam and Islamism! I asked you to differentiate between Political Islam and Islamism. If you were mistaken, fair enough (I certainly don't need you to tell me the difference between Islam and Islamism!). However, if you thought Islam = Political Islam then you're way off the mark...

 

[phildwyer]

have to log off soon, but will do so in the morning. Suffce to say, there is huge disagreement within the worlds of both Islam and Islamism, as to how much the two coincide, and where they diverge.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Hardly surprising given the source, but still. Please don't post on this thread again.

 

[butchersapron]

You should be aware that the above quote uses the word "Islamists" not "Islamism". It doesn't say Political Islam and Islamism are different, it actually says that Islamists are adherents of Political Islam.

The article that quote came from also doesn't differentiate between Political Islam and Islamism (indeed Political Islam is only mentioned in the title, the rest of the article refers to Islamism or Islamists).

http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/islamism_4043.jsp

Unfortunately I haven't read Roy's original book so perhaps you'd like to correct me, but the index has no mention of either Islamism or Political Islam, suggesting they are one and the same (ie the theme of the book), it certainly would be strange to omit the terms from the index if he makes a special point about differentiating between them...

I'm starting to lose the will to live here, i'm not sure how many times i can make the same point in slightly different ways only for you to totally miss what i'm saying. One last time then, Political Islam is an internal sub-section of Islamism. It is a form of Islamism. It differs from another form of Islamism, internal Saudi state-wahhabism. It is an Islamism, so your repeat demands that i tell you why Political Islam isn't Islamist is nonsensical. My original posts were directed at the use of Political Islam to cover both of these forms of Islamism, an approach analagous to subsituting labour or tory for the term political parties. In the same way that you can you cannot use labour party in place of political parties you cannot simply use political Islam in place of Islamist. (To make this even more frustrating you make it clear that you do recognise some internal differences within Islamism, but for some reason seem to label that as the result of differeing personalities or other such trivialities).

Roy, there's a reason he developed and used the term Political Islam and used in that manner - in that quote above he doesn't say as you claim that "Islamists are adherents of Political Islam." - it says the opposite, that political islamists are adherents of Islamism, exactly as i've argued throughout this thread. That's why he's emphasising that political islam, as a form of Islamism, can fail, but Islamism hasn't - the wider group to which it belongs still exists. This itself should make clear where you're going wrong - you've been asking me what the difference is between the labour party and political parties. Nonsensical.

 

[Idris2002]

The Revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran has very little to do with, or influence over wider "political Islam". The Wahhabis and other "strict adherence" maniacs, who predominate in "political Islam" are mostly Sunni, and would view the fall of the RIRI as a cause for celebration and an opportunity to sow dissent.
Now if one of the twin pillars of Saudi society were to crumble, that'd be a different story with major repercussions, IMO. Saudi money is tied up in so many movements in so many countries that a shift there would affect everywhere they've funded.

OK, but some stuff I read alleges that the Ahmadinejad clique are seeking the replacement of the 'Islamic Republic' with 'Islamic government', i.e. a regime that would enforce strict adherence without any of the (meagre) checks and balances of the present regime in Iran.

The Saudi regime won't fall until the world economy starts to move decisively away from dependence on fossil fuels. That day is coming, but it's still a long-term trend, not an imminent future.

In general, attempts to subordinate politics to religion within any society (post-civil war Spain, post-revolutionary Ireland, Sudan, America, Iran) are the consequence of severe structural defects and flaws within that society. Those flaws will ultimately express themselves in the field of political struggle, though, regardless of how long religion is able to defer the conflict.

 

[CyberRose]

One last time then, Political Islam is an internal sub-section of Islamism.

The simple fact is that political Islam, or Islamism -- defined broadly as the belief that the Koran and the Hadith (Traditions of the Prophet's life) have something important to say about the way society and governance should be ordered -- remains the most powerful ideological force in that part of the world.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57806/graham-e-fuller/the-future-of-political-islam

The last half-century in particular has seen the recurrent use of religious Islam as ideology, often referred to as political Islam or Islamism, in groups espousing the establishment of an Islamic state.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/ilsp/research/mendoza.pdf

Political Islam, also known as Islamism, is an increasingly important force in Muslim majority countries and regions of the world, within Muslim communities in western states, and at the level of global politics.
http://www.soas.ac.uk/business/interface/political_islam/

I'm starting to lose the will to live here, i'm not sure how many times i can make the same point in slightly different ways only for you to totally miss what i'm saying. One last time then, Political Islam is Islamism.

 

[CyberRose]

Oh and considering how adamant you are that Political Islam is only a branch of the wider Islamist movement (clearly incorrect as the above post demonstrates but humour me), then why haven't you explained exactly what it is you think makes something Political Islam rather than merely Islamist?