Terminology for discussing political Islam
Posted on Tuesday 23 October, 2007
Filed Under International
Like almost all commentators these days, I strictly observe the distinction between Islam the religion and Islamism as a set of political ideas. But helpful as such differentiation is, it is still insufficient.
That’s why I have recently made an unwanted debut on Islamaphobia Watch, with Martin Sullivan offering the following comment on an earlier post on this blog:
Outlining his proposals for combating the threat of further terrorist attacks, Osler writes that “Islamist networks can and must be infiltrated and smashed” – which would mean infiltrating and smashing Hizb ut-Tahrir, presumably. Since when did socialists support the right of the state to infiltrate and smash legal and non-violent political organisations? In fact, on the generally accepted definition of “Islamism” as a politicised version of the faith, organisations like the British Muslim Initiative would also fall victim to Osler’s “anti-terrorism” strategy.
I can see how my phraseology was open to that interpretation, but clearly this isn’t what I meant to say. My intention was to argue that it is legitimate for the state to infiltrate and smash Islamist cells planning terrorist attacks.
Radical Islamist parties – including Hizb ut Tahrir and al Mujahiroun – should remain legal organisations. In a liberal pluralist society, that is not a cost of freedom; that is the nature of freedom. I hope that makes things clearer.
The problem is that ‘Islamism’ as a catch-all term takes in political formations of a sweeping range of orientations. No one word can possible properly cover such a range of thought.
Turkey’s AK Party is widely considered to be either functional equivalent to a west European-style Christian democrat outfit, or at least on the way to becoming so.
Iran in the 1970s threw up currents that considered themselves both Muslims and Marxist-Leninists. Whether or not one thinks such a synthesis possible, the attempt to bring it about is not more illegitimate than Latin American liberation theology.
So help me out, readers, and stop me being branded a racist again. What terminology should be adopted more correctly to describe the heterogeneity of contemporary Islamism?
<<Go back
Comments
25 Responses to “Terminology for discussing political Islam”
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
Well here’s my two cents on this – being called “racist” by a website which seeks to publically slander individuals based on blog entries without allowing either a discussion on said comments nor the right of reply should be taken with a grain of salt.
Secondly the question of terminology is an important one and one that I have given serious consideration to over the years. I have resorted to using the terms “right-wing Islamism” or “rightist Islamist” to describe those who support terror, the oppression of women and the oppression of LGBT peoples.
Now of course I am sure that the folks at “Don’t Mention Islam” would argue that terms already exist for people who support such things – such as “terrorist” for those who support terror, “homophobe” for those who support the oppression of members of the LGBT community and “sexist” for those who support the oppression of women.
However, it is disingenuous to elimiate Islam as part of the description when the people who hold these views claim to do so because they claim they are following the tenets of a particular religion.
People do not generally get their knickers in a twist when referring to “Christian fundamentalists” with the implied definition of such being that they are homophobic, racist, etc. yet this too is a term that really shouldn’t be used. There are a number of Christian fundamentalists who are neither homophobic nor racist, but do believe very sincerely in their religious ideas. I have resorted to the term “right-wing Christian fundamentalists” because this far more accurately decribes what is meant.
Those who follow a particular religion and use it to attempt to justify terror, oppression and totalitarianism should be called what they are – which is “right-wing”. However, the fact that they use their religion in an attempt to justify such acts means the name of their religion must be mentioned as well if you are attempting to have any sort of informed discussion about why said things are being justified – be that Christianity or Islam.
Badge of honour I’d say to have got ‘Martin’ have a go at you (aka, Bob Pitt). Though Dave, I was one of the very first to be hauled up on Islamophobia Watch, so I’ve got previous.
This whole debate is, as TWP says, clarified in a minute when you describe the reactionaries as, er reactionaries.
And they really are.
You can’t win with Sirrah Bob Pitt. In my review of Nick Cohen’s book in the Weekly Worker I made great pains at distinguishing between forms of Islamicism and people who are committed to this belief as a real faith (whatever one thinks of that).
I did this on the basis that one of my closest friends, Anwar Huq, is from a Bangladeshi Muslim background. He has told me at great lengths about his land (the Islamicist genociders for example, and how his family had to leave because of the situation in the seventies)and the great and beloved Benglai culture (he is highly atheist btw). His dad had written a book which tried to combine what he called Islamic Humanism, socialism and support for human rights.
I know where I stand on racism: I loathe it from the bottom of my heart. I suspect you have exactly the same basic working class attitude: we all muck in together.
Ignore Pitt.
Dave, the main political problem you have is less to do with your terminology but rather your complete and utter divorce from the anti-war movement in Britain…
Snowball
The ‘anti-war movement in Britain’ is run on a disgracefully sectarian basis by the leadership of your party, the SWP.
Organisations with my perspective – third campism – are actively debarred from joining.
Can you justify that?
I think it’s best to use qualifiers more. I’m not convinced that “Islamist” as such is a meaningful term – at least it’s used far too promiscuously.
Bob of course has his own tendency to promiscuous terminology…
Btw, Dave, I’m quite envious of this denunciation. I can’t even get Jim Denham to denounce me as a Stalinist.
Martin Sullivan’s observations were fair game. The comment about infiltrating and smashing Islamist networks was clumsy when surely something like “funamentalist Islamic terrorist networks” or “violent religious extremist networks” or simply “terrorist networks” would have sufficed.
But to say Islamic networks per se only appeases the more intolerant, insensitive elements of this blog’s readership. Language is important in these matters and we leave ourselves open to justified criticism if we don’t take care, just as you might by stating categorically, without qualification, that Jewish networks or Zionist networks per se must be infilitrated and smashed.
Yeah, I admit it. Clumsy formulations. Unfortunate by-product of hasty blogging. Pittski was right to pick me up. This time.
That’s why I want to raise my terminological game and get it right in future.
‘Organisations with my perspective – third campism – are actively debarred from joining.’
If that is the case, and I doubt it, then it is only because their ‘third campism’ tends to put them in the ‘first camp’ of imperialism and racism more often than not (hence the AWL publishing Danish cartoons etc etc)…
That’s fair enough, Dave. Hats off for actually making the effort. I try to do the same (but probably fail) but it’s definitely best to keep an open mind.
For the record, I agree with Sullivan’s comments on this ocassion but I’m not sure it elicited quite such an accusatory post of its own on Islamophobia Watch, which can sometimes only stir things up even more. It’s a bad move to categorise or imply that someone is racist or Islamophobic based on a few remarks which might be merely clumsy. We all get clumsy…
Dave,
again you display the necessary honesty that others should follow, rather than moaning about it
on the one hand, some people here wish their own comments to be viewed in the most charitable way and yet when you make a comment they see it in the worst possible light, showing their hypocrisy on this matter
in terms of terminology, I would make a distinction between political Islamism and violent fundamentalist Islamism (there is some crossover but still)
and then within those two broad categories, outline the various shades of rightwing views and further qualify when needed
However, it is still a problem, because of the likes of Bob Pitt want to take offence, whatever you write he won’t be happy and he’ll nit-pick, so you are on a hiding to nothing either way
Best ignore Pitt and Co.
Modernity,
you are exhibiting art of the problem here yourself.
“I would make a distinction between political Islamism and violent fundamentalist Islamism and then within those two broad categories, outline the various shades of rightwing views”
but not all shades of political Islam are right wing.
You wouldn’t assume that Rev ian paisley and Rev Jesse Jackson shared the same politics, on the basis they are both Christians.
In the same way you can have left wing and right wing people who self organise politically as jews, and indeed you can left wing and right wing Zionists.
What we do have is a complicated phenomenon where some objectively progressive anti-imperialist movements have become associated with a political identity associated with Islam. This means that the ideology – for better are worse – impacts on the way the struggle is conducted (for example the way the second intifada became diverted into the dead end of suicide bombings),and also can involve promotion of reactionary social attitudes. But it would be a mistake to ignore the underlying national liberation struggle, and its broadly progressive nature, just as it would be a mistake to ignore the reactionary political aspects of some of the islamists ideas.
In any event I am a little unsure why dave felt the need to call on the state to combat terrorism, whether Islamists or whatever. i would have thought that was something the state was doing anyway.
So we are left with an utter straw man: Dave’s position is, it seems: “it is legitimate for the state to infiltrate and smash Islamist cells planning terrorist attacks.”
As opposed to ….
errr – no-one.
Is anyone saying that the state should turn a blind eye to terrorists planning bombings?
AN wrote:
but not all shades of political Islam are right wing.
really? please do give us a few examples of non-right wing Islamism
I am sure there must be dozens? please I’d welcome some examples
I think Bob Pitt is correct. But he doesn’t go far enough in that article in exposing the anti-Islamist mindset of most Brit lefts.
Any principal Leftist would have supported the anti-imperialist struggle of the IRA and the INLA in the 70s and 80s.
But even those who didn’t, e.g. Militant, still condemned the Diplock courts, the ‘shoot to kill’ fake encounters, the frame-ups of those such as the Birmingham 6 or the draconian legislation used, such as the PTA.
Why this contrast? I can only thus conclude that it’s because of the religious views of the Islamists, a consideration not taken into account by Lefts thirty years ago when commentating on the IRA and when members of that organisation may have mixed their nationalism with some very conservative social views.
So, as a general point, to Dave, but also to all those others who Lefts who don’t engage with the anti war movement, why the complete silence on the modern equivalent to this – such as the growing number of Islamist political prisoners in the UK -, a clear consequence of Britain’s (and the US’s) imperialist occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is, with honourable exceptions, such as on my site and in Socialist Worker, a near complete silence on the incarceration of those for doing things such as copying information from websites.
Awaab Iqbal, 20, replaced his face, and that of other friends, with those of the 9/11 terrorists on a poster. But he claimed he now “felt embarrassed” and had not considered the effect it would have. He was found guilty of having articles for terrorism under Section 57 of the Terrorism Act.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2800684.ece
What sort of Alice In Wonderland offence is “conspiring to possess money for terrorist purposes”? (‘Abdul, I’ll help you get a job and then when you are paid …no damn, it’s now a crime to get a job, i.e. ‘conspire to possess money’ if we are up to no good with money). Two men were charged with that offence this week http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7047931.stm
Even Dave’s language in his ‘defence’ swallows the hegemony of the state e.g.” it is legitimate for the state to infiltrate and smash Islamist cells planning terrorist attacks.”
What would one call an Al Qaeda attack on, say, an oil refinery in Britain that lead to the death of several workers and a major disruption in supply – an act of terrorism, a forward military operation behind enemy lines or just an act during war.
What would you likewise call a USAF bombing raid on a power station in Germany during WW2 that had a similar effect – which one of the three, or something else?
And if the Islamists or the USAF or the RAF or the IRA destroyed a market with many casualties or a military HQ with no civilian casualties – what would you call those activities?
I wouldn’t call them terrorist attacks just because the blighters are taking the fighting inside my ‘own’ country. I would call them all ‘war’.
Do I support 9/11 or the killing of Iraqis by gung-ho coalition troops or Bloody Sunday (Derry)? No, but I don’t call them ‘terrorism’.
When you are to the right of where Militant was on anti-imperialist matters when they directly relate to your ‘own’ country, then you’re on the road to political oblivion.
Dave’s part – guilty as charged.
-
Incidentally compare the treatment of the above Muslim students and the like, undertaking the above childish and similar acts in Bradford, and the frequent commemorations by Irish republicans in Belfast, of their war such as in the production of commemorative calendars etc.
Do you think Martin McGuiness is likely to be hauled before the court for having some old IRA calendars (surely a.k.a. ‘promoting terrorism’) in his possession?
well, when racial nationalism was the big thing back in the 1930s, there were, I think, some leftish racial nationalists in places like Sweden. So I expect there probably is some obscure left-islamic-religious-nationalist group somewhere.
Even by a definition of ‘leftist’ that doesn’t use the traditional ‘the enemy of my ally is objectively progressive’ rule.
Rejected by PBS:
“Islam vs. Islamism” – video
I think the distinction is clear enough. When people were being tortured, shot or ethnicly cleansed because they or their grandfather might have gone to the mosque, their surname was Halilovic or some similar giveaway, they were just Muslims, and merited no concern or defence from the likes of Bob Pitt or the SWP In fact they were deliberately mortar-bombing themselves to bid for arms or justify imperialist intervention, and had no right to protest or expect anyone’s sympathy. Bob Pitt’s friends nowadays in Socialist Action (the masons in Ken’s entourage) were busy joininfg with the Serb nationalists who blamed Tito for being too soft on Muslims in the first place.
But when you have Muslim organisations that believe in sharia law and a return of the caliphate, look to Saudi Arabia or Tehran for support, or think it is OK to kill ordinary working people and their kids, whether in London, Mumbai, Tel ASviv or Karachi, why they deserve the adulation of our new deranged “left” and must not be exposed to any offence or criticism in the “anti-war movement”. Least of all from people coming from Muslim countries – what to do they know? They are just a lot of refugees!
One point I would add though. I suspect you will find groups like al Mohajiroun and Hizb al Tahrir were infiltrated by the satte long before we had any bombings here. In fact the Karachi bombing is very similar to one carried out in Tripoli some years ago by an Islamicist group working for British intelligence. And more than one dubious character and even wanted criminal, such as those who carried out atrocities for the Pakistani army in Bangladesh, was helped into Britain by the authorities and ennabled to take posts in mosques etc, when other asylum seekers with no such record were and are being deported.
BTW, if Dave is “divorced” from the anti-war movement and by anti-war movement you mean the current clique running Stop the War Coalition and keeping good Iranian comrades out, how soon before we can all put in for a quick divorce?
really? please do give us a few examples of non-right wing Islamism
Malcolm X springs to mind.
“Malcolm X springs to mind.” Of course you could mention, at least in its earlier incarnation, teh Iranian Mujaheddin…
And on a certain level, this highlights the terminological problem Dave refers to. Of course if what you mean by ‘Islamism’ includes Malcolm X it’s so fantastically broad as to be meaningless. But who, really, thinks we’re referring to such a broad phenomenon? With some confusion at the edges, whether you call it Islamism, jihadi Islamism, salafi jihadism, political Islamism, or whatever you call it, most people (ie most people involved in this discussion, I’m not saying the public at large) know, more or less, what we’re talking about.
And *that* phenomenon, with the poitical programme of restoring the Caliphate, sharia law, or something broadly similar (rule by jurisprudents if they’re in the Khomeini genre) is a reactionary movement. Surely.
AN wrote:
Malcolm X springs to mind.
so that’s ONE individual, not a movement or political group, one bloke, long since dead? not exactly a resounding counter balance to the stream of right-wing Islamism
so are there ANY current examples of non right-wing Islamist movements?
I think Southpaw and co are conflating the significance of the undoubted similarity of situation between [insert whatever we're going to call Islamists here] and, say, Irish republicanism and other movements that we might call national liberation ones, with similarity of political aims. Irish republicanism had a clear stated aim of an independent 32-county socialist republic (we can argue about how credible that claim was another time); it’s, at the very least, nowhere near as clear what the political aims of [insert whatever we're going to call Islamism here] are – sure, there’s is a reaction AGAINST, say, Western aggression in the Middle East and against the subjuguation of Palestine which most of us on the Left broadly share, but what they’re FOR matters too. And as a trade unionist, socialist and democrat, it don’t look too progressive to me. And this matters.
Sorry Tom, why does it matter what you personally think about for example Hizbollah?
And if you are going to extend dave’s uncontentious argument that the British state should attempt to stop terrorist Jihadis towards the much bigger idea that we should conflate these Jihadis with mass popular anti-imperialist movements in the Middle east, then that is a real problem.
Modernity – With regard to progressive Muslim politicians, there are the examples of Congressman Keith Ellison in the USA, or Salma Yaqoob in Birmingham, there are several others. These are people who political liberalism is underpinned by their islamic faith.
But of course if you define political islam only to be those Jihadis who support a Caliphate and sharia law, then you are correct that it is a right wing political tradition.
an wrote:
With regard to progressive Muslim politicians,
I wrote:
so are there ANY current examples of non right-wing Islamist movements?
I didn’t write non right wing Muslims, as there IS a distinction between the two (the topic of the thread)
so basically, evidentially speaking, there is Malcom X, no other movements, no significant current grouping that you can point to that are non right wing Islamism
at best, and I am being charitable, a few scattered individuals, which hardly detracts from the original issue of the right wing nature of Islamism
I think Clive’s latter point holds true
Well it is just a terminology that gets us no where
Hizbollah for eaxmple are a complex social phenomenon, where right wing ideological aspects are not necessarily dominant, but sometimes are.
Andy said “You wouldn’t assume that Rev ian paisley and Rev Jesse Jackson shared the same politics, on the basis they are both Christians.”
And nobody here(probably) would assume two people who call themselves Muslims would have the same politics.
Andy’s definition seems to mean ‘anyone who defines as a Muslim and is actively interested in politics’. Well, of course there are people who fit that on the left and it is a meaningless term.
This definition has been put about by people like the SWP so they can falsely accuse people concerned with political Islam of being prejudiced against Muslims.
The equivalent of a ‘political Islamist’ in Christianity would be someone like Gerry Falwell not Tony Benn. Someone whose politics is defined by a literal reading of their religion.
Here’s a useful definition, from Graham Fuller’s book The Future of Political Islam:
“In my view an Islamist is someone who believes that Islam as a body of faith has something important to say about how politics and society should be ordered … and who seeks to implement this idea in some fashion. The term ‘political Islam’ should be neutral in character, neither pejorative nor judgmental in itself; only upon further definition of the specific views, means, and goals of an Islamist movement in each case can we be critical of the process. I prefer this definition because it is broad enough to capture the full spectrum of Islamist expression that runs the gamut from radical to moderate, violent to peaceful, democratic to authoritarian, traditionalist to modernist.”