Talk:Political aspects of Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] This article

Umm, yeah, I am the world's foremost expert on this topic and I just wanted to say that this article really misses some big points and is wholly misleading if not all-out wrong. Please rewrite the article and I will let you know when it is at a level satisfactory of educating the public on political aspects of Islam. Thanks --130.108.192.193 04:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't blank articles like that for rewriting. If you wish to sign up for an account and rewrite it in your own userspace, then dandy, but blanking the article and stating "rewrite for accuracy" is not the way it's done. Alternately, f you have specific problems with the article, bring them up here on the talk page (preferably at the bottom of the page), and other editors will look into it. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you sir.--130.108.192.193 04:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article creation/deletion

This article is a replacement for Islamism (and for that matter Islamofascism, radical Islamist and the other often-deleted trash written on this subject from propaganda sources). It incorporates all material from Islamism and does not have its USPOV problems. Most sources used (Nutting 1961, Sardar 1994, Jansen 1980) are British, spread over a long enough time period that there is less risk of reflecting just one view of these events:

Islam as a political movement focuses on the evolution of the various 20th century ways Islam got involved in politics, and is meant to complement militant Islam, on the groups, tactics, doctrines, major leaders and goals. Fusing the two is paying over-much attention to terrorism and thus giving short shift to the democratic Islamists who run in elections, the community building clerics in places like Palestine and Iraq, and the quite real accomplishments of Shia clerics in government in Iran.

It is also extremely offensive to lump the ideology of the government of Saudi Arabia onto the same list as Al Qaida, as the old article did. Whose interests does that serve? Yes bin Laden is a Saudi - and both George W. Bush and Malcolm X are Americans.

Political Islam thought based on an idea, which says, “The prophet is our leader, Islam is our ideology and Holy Qur’an is our Constitution”. (Karam, 2004, 4). Surely, Prophet Mohammed himself was a leader of the original polity of Islam. According to Ziauddin Sardar, no matter what issue was, whenever Prophet faced a social and political problem he would discussed issue with Muslims participation in order to reach a consensus in the Islamic community. Thus, a democratic spirit was a central to communal and “political life” in early Islam (Sardar, 2004, 31). Of course, Prophet Mohammed Shari`ah was a problem-solving methodology for social and political issues rather than an unchangeable absolute law (Sardar, 2002). Problem is how the general notion of Islam has been reduced to “political Islam”, particularly in recent times with Islamists. However, in present time, Prophet Mohammed has been reduced to signs and symbols. His beard and clothes have been turned into fetish. Hadiths are quoted to justify the most extremist behaviour in the Islamic communities. As Sardar argue, the spirit of Prophet Mohammed’s behaviour, the moral and ethical dimension of his action, his humanity and compassion has been subsumed by the logic of absurd reduction.(Sardar 2003, 12). Numerous other concepts of Qur’an have gone trough a similar process of reduction as we have seen in the example of Prophet Mohammed. The concept of “ummah”, the global spiritual community of Muslim has been reduced to the ideals of the nation state. My country is wrong or right has been changed to my ummah is wrong or right. The concept of jihad also needs to be examined in this context. It has been reduced to a single meaning of Holy War. Furthermore, it reduced to war by any means, including “terrorism” (Sardar, 2004, 31). Because its intellectual and social components have been stripped away. Esposito is making very good point in this respect, he says, “in the late twentieth and twentieth first centuries, the concept of “jihad” has gained remarkable currency. Resistances, liberations, and terrorist movements use concept of jihad alike to legitimate their cause and motive their followers” (Esposito, 2004, 26). Consequently, as Sardar says any one can declare jihad on anyone without any ethical or moral rhyme or reason.(Sardar 2004, 31). According to Aziz Al- Azmeh (Azmeh, 2003), the phenomena of “political Islam” emerged when traditional Islamic culture met modern western culture and it has been strengthened by fast changing political, economic and social conditions. Moreover, “Politics of Islam” became an image or a powerful political weapon for any states or groups since the Islamic belief is still effective over Muslim world and it can be used in any way for political and economic interests. --Alibektas 08:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Some missing elements in this article:

[Islamist 'thought'] is more a holdover of tarika movements and resistance to colonialism, and a political tool of rich Arabs who donate money to radical movements. Shia radicals including Hizbollah, and nationalists including the Palestinian Al Aqsa brigades, follow a different doctrine but largely employ the same tactics, a military form of jihad.
Some Northern writers, notably Olivier Roy, have suggested that the Arab resistance to North-backed regimes installed and protected by the U.S. and U.K. and France and Russia, is really resisting colonialism and is therefore not part of Islamic but of the anti-globalization movement, and anti-colonialism and anti-racism strains of resistance to Northern oil imperialism. If this is so, the Islamic doctrines are merely cover for a political movement. Roy further suggests that the United States and Israel are actually the religiously motivated states, and that various fundamentalist movements in Judaism and Christianity dominate the parties that support each country's military-industrial complex.
...the argument that alternations between fundamentalism and secular military dictators are somehow inherently part of the politics of the Arab World or Islam in general. One response is that such trends were likewise observed in other regions, e.g. Latin America, with Communism as a form of fundamentalism, and that those regions often democratize once outside interference is limited.
Numerous attempts to reconcile Islamic sharia law with feminism and human rights norms of international law have been made, dating back to reform efforts in former Soviet Central Asia before 1920, when these regions enjoyed effective autonomy due to chaos in the Russian Civil War. More modern efforts in Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iran and the proposed state of Palestine have often emphasized the traditional role of women's control of the household finances. In Bangaladesh the Grameen Bank has been involved in micro-capital financing of small businesses run exclusively by women.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.94.100 (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2003


I am not going to comment on the above points. Rather, I am concerned about the way that this anonymous person is unilaterally trying to rewrite all of our articles on Islam and Islamism, to push a decidedly anti-American agenda. Many of the claims he makes are provably false.

If you have a problem with a specific claim, question it. It seems more likely that, as you yourself frequently make provably false claims, you are attempting to establish some moral equivalence between your edits and mine. - user:142.177.etc

That is not to say that some of his other ideas are all bad; some may be valuble. But his current tactic is to copy current Wikipedia articles, rewrite them to fit his own POV, incorporate some provavbly false claims, and then give them new titles.

That is a reasonable description of RK's method. I am sure that his frequent use of it has made him quite paranoid that others will discover and use it against him. Note the various ways he tried to do exactly the above with the articles that ended up as Gaia philosophy, Gaia (biology), etc., etc..
The article that is here is hardly a "copy" of that trash that was at Islamism, which seemed to come straight from an Israeli or American university being paid to slander Islamic parties as being the same thing as militant Islamic groups and to pretend that Islam as a political movement is some primitive aberration of recent decades. Meanwhile waging their own religiously-motivated war against colonized folk in a growing number of countries, leading up to an invasion of Iran most likely. Their agenda is clear. What's not clear, is why it is allowed to be paraded as truth here. - user:142.177.etc

That is a clear violation of Wikipedia community norms, and a violation of our NPOV policy. If someone wants to change a page, then they mjst work with others on that page. One may not create their own parallel encyclopedia within Wikipedia to express their own views. RK 20:45, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)~

There are no "community norms", as you yourself have proved, RK. You made them go away with your incessant pandering, slandering, and definition games. You have always, and will always it seems, reserve to yourself the definition of what sources to believe, what constitutes neutral balancing or appropriate factoring, what claims need extensive and elaborated justification (those that challenge Zionism or American Exceptionalism or scientism, it seems) and what can be deleted altogether (any statement that offers a credible view from or of feminism, Marxism, Queers, or other movements opposed to colonialism, racism and imperialism, Islam among them). I am not racist enough to believe that you are targetting Islam specifically because you are a Jew, nor nationalist enough to believe that you do it because you are a Zionist, or because you are an American, although you parade both of those on your shoulder, along with your pathetic claims to be a scientist. What I believe, is that Islam is at this point in history the most effective global political movement challenging people like you, and so, you participate in any effort required to belittle it and put it in your box called Islamism (which is a very rare term, the term Islamist being accepted by those who accept Islam as a political movement, not Islamism as a political movement). If you don't know that you are doing this, then, it is very sad that you are so badly media manipulated. If you do know, and I suspect you do, I think you should do it elsewhere, as many of us at Wikipedia have noticed this tactic of yours: screaming "anti-semitism" and calling for bans on the mailing list, for instance, as soon as someone mentions UN resolutions against the criminal occupation of the West Bank or suggesting that Zionism is racism, which Neturei Karta and most of the UN security council already know. Since you make it a fight, count me in with Rabbi Hirsch and Yasser Arafat, and against you, Bush, and Sharon, criminals who use technology to hide the truth. Now, no doubt, you will use the technology of reverting this to hide the truth about yourself and your agenda. But two can play that game. If you want to be followed around and have your agenda pointed out and extensively ridiculed from impeccable sources again and again, then, keep picking these fights. You are a loser, and you and your gang will lose. - user:142.177.etc


I like the name. 142, get an account. BL 23:06, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

BL, stop encouraging EntmootsOfTrolls. This page is a Redirect to Islamism. EoT is a sick man who has been banned from Wikipedia for making multiple death threats. Don't encourage him. This entire "article" is has already been discussed on the Wiki-En list, and this article should not exist. It existed solely to gives EoT's POV on Islam. It is a violation of our NPOV policy to set up articles to promote one person's pointof view. The fact that ou are encouraging him in this vandalism is disappointing. RK
If this article is EoT's POV of Islam, I think it is a good view. If your problem with the article is that EoT wrote most of it, just pretend it was me or something, as you know articles doesn't have "authors" here. I also find this name much better than the other alternatives. Unfortunately I don't think this issue will be resolved in this way, as someone demonstrated to me, you don't get attention or replies or a meaningful discussion unless you make a pest of yourself. But now I've written tomuch again and need to concentrate on work. The edit war starts tonigt (GMT)! Be there or be square! BL 17:24, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The article has been discussed on WikiEN-l, which is kind of weird, because the correct place to discuss this article is here. In any case, there was no agreement on WikiEn-l that this article should not exist - see, for example, Anthere's post, just as there appears to be no agreement here. Martin 17:32, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)


While I perceive biases in this article, I don't think it should simply be redirected to Islamism, as it makes the point that there are different Islamic political groups with different goals, rewhile directing to Islamism implies that any Muslim who bases his politics on his view of Islam is part of a "fundamentalist, puritanical Islamic revival movement". However, the article currently spends little or no time saying things like "Group X thinks that this should be done, while Group Y thinks that should be done".

Particularly, "Islam is inherently political" and "There is no separation of church and state responsibilities in any branch of Islam" seem POV. Consdier the millions of Muslims living in the United States. Are all of them trying to get Islamic religious laws enacted as the laws of the land? If not, are those who aren't trying to do so "not real Muslims"?

Also, I think linking to Militant Islam rather than Islamism is off (even if the Islamism article should be given a different name/title). It implies that all Muslims who would like to establish a "fundamentalist, puritanical" state use violence, and visa-versa. -- Khym Chanur 06:37, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

I'm calling a vote:

Should the article "Islam as a political movement" remain as an article?

Yes: BL

No (make it a redirect):

Too early for a vote (try revising): Uncle Ed, Khym Chanur

This page is way too long, for the pittance of information it actually gives. It would ALMOST be better to delete than to have it.

But what we need is a clear explanation of the political aspects of Islam. No one in the West understands it. Or if they do, they haven't dropped by the Wikipedia yet. *sigh* I might have to become an expert on it, just to revise this article. With 10,000 registered users, why must it be me?

Okay, the pity party is over. I learned a lot about Middle Eastern politics to write about the Arab-Israeli conflict and revise articles like Palestinian. I guess I could take on a little more. But I'd rather work on the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. Help me out, eh? --Uncle Ed 21:19, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] POV ?

Section 2 of this article is very POV throughout. Problems include:

  • Controversial opinions about Islam which others may not agree with. Examles:
    • Islam is inherently political
    • . . .adding "ism" to the term Islam adds nothing useful to Muslims
    • The grounds for more liberal interpretation of Islam are not in dispute.
  • Inflamatory rhetoric that is more propaganda than encyclopedia. Examples:
    • It is also not possible, as another tenet within Islam, to stand idly by as fellow Muslims are oppressed, attacked or colonized
    • . . .seems to imply that a "tame" or "colonizable" Islam can exist which does not involve political activity.
    • . . .justifying its oppressions in the name of Islam!
  • Off topic opinions and info
    • Iraqis attacking U.S. occupation troops after the 2003 invasion of Iraq were and are very often described as "terrorists", despite the fact that they are natives resisting an invasion not authorized by the United Nations.
    • In the United States in the 1960s for instance. . .

I think section 2 should be removed entirely.

Quadell 21:12, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Not a great article, but I think I've removed "Controversial opinions about Islam which others may not agree with" and "Inflamatory rhetoric" ("justifying its oppressions in the name of Islam!" is a quote, and a relevant one.) I don't think the "off-topic" points are off topic. - Mustafaa 23:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements! I still have some problems with parts of it, but it's much better. I'm now convinced that section 2 can be salvaged, instead of removed. I'm going to carefully read section 2 again, and look for ways to improve the wording and remove lingering POV. Quadell 12:36, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

perhaps the term 'anti-semitism' in reference to the anti-jewish attitude among certain arabs should be replaced, as arabs are themselves 'semitic'

[edit] Movements to establish "Islamist states" not recognized as "Islamist" by "the West"?

The article states: "There are many more movements to establish such states than are recognized as Islamist by the West, thus the use is not very uniform. The association of one term to lump terrorism in with these autonomy, secession, self-sufficiency or independence movements would seem to be designed to discredit them. In the same way, Iraqis attacking U.S. occupation troops after the 2003 invasion of Iraq were and are very often described as "terrorists", despite the fact that they are natives resisting an invasion not authorized by the United Nations."

No source is given. Who in their right mind would not recognize a movement to establish an "Islamist state" as being "Islamist?" If some particular Islamist movement (perhaps in Iraq) is designated as beign a "terrorist organization" by "the West," it does not mean that "the West" no longer recognizes it as being an "Islamist movement." Indeed, there are Islamist terrorist organizations. This statement, in the article, is a priori factually incorrect and should be removed. The discussion about elements of the Iraqi resistance being labelled as "terrorists" by "the West," as part of some conspiracy to discredit the resistance, is completely irrelevant. --Zeno of Elea 05:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I got rid of the Iraq part which is completely irrelevant. Not sure how to rewrite the rest. There are some other gems:

  • What these groups have in common tends to be opposition to the United States and Israel.
  • Another profound bias of such classifications is that it is quite rare to include nominally Christian or Jewish or Buddhist guerillas in any analysis of those faiths' views of politics, but quite common if it is Islam under discussion—and likely being criticized.
  • The following sources generally prescribe to the theory that there is a distinct 20th century movement called Islamism that exists independently of Jewish/Christian observers and motivations:
  • ... in part a result of Islam being suppressed prior to modern times.
  • But what is actually put into practice is a small number of classical juristic rulings...These are in fact 'outer limit' laws to be carried out only under extreme conditions...
  • Despite the assertion that somehow all so-called Islamism is related, more moderate trends were well-funded...

That's some seriously POV, original-research, and of course completely unsourced crap. ObsidianOrder 07:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Cleaning up this mess

I rewrote section 1 of this article last year, and am finally going to give the rest of it a shot. Have started with section 2, since that is really awful. Help would be appreciated.--Zeeshanhasan 10:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Whew! That was a lot of work. Will start on section 3 tomorrow. =) --Zeeshanhasan 17:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The article definitely needs a re write . Its impossible to read , impossible to understand , & a huge task to rewrite . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Btw is there any reason to have that map on this article & believe that it originated from an Islamist site , & not from an islamophobic site . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what the map was doing there myself. I moved the long Montgomery Watt quote to the appropriate article. I'm also going to do that with the huge Ziauddin Sardar quote. --Zeeshanhasan 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-structuring page chronologically

I think the page would be much more readable if it were chronological. So I've made a Post-WW1 and Post-WW2 section. Also want to emphasize The Cold War and Post-9/11. --Zeeshanhasan 05:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

THe text looks fine as is. Kudos to editors. I find this NPOV.

[edit] Terrible article

This article looks like a bunch of creative writing by some middle schooler. Edits should be sourced, and should make precise statements. Sentences like "Islam is a religion which has existed for over fourteen centuries" illustrates the problem. If one doesn't have it in him to do the research necessary to produce a credible article, one shouldn't attempt editing at all. Amibidhrohi 20:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to improve it! --Zeeshanhasan 01:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yousef al-Khattab was removed, as his article was deleted because he is non-notable.


[edit] Islamic political jurisprudence

Somebody added a merge without any disscussion. Anyway, i oppose the merge. --Striver 12:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless this article is significantly expanded, this should be merged with Political aspects of Islam. Currently, this article contains two, not particularly enlightening sentences: "Islamic politics is the profession of Muslim politicians. It is the field of politics within the bounds of Islam." These are tautological definitions. Political aspects of Islam, on the other hand, is an extensive, if disputed, article, that explicitly deals with "politics within the bounds of Islam." There may be an entire class of political activities that do not fall within the boundaries of said article, involving not explicitly religious politics shaped by Islamic jurisprudence. Currently, this article contains no information on such issues. In its current state, the list at the end of this article should be inserted into Political aspects of Islam. AlexeiSeptimus 23:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is an unsourced article

This is another completely unsourced article, i.e. OR. Its a personal essay. I dont know how it can survive an AFD or why it has existed for so long. Interesting. --Matt57 04:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standards for "Further Reading" section

As of now, the Further Reading section is spammed with non-academic, "popular" books on the subject, all (except three) tilting towards a right-wing (for lack of a better terms) political bias.

Their is currently ONE book on the list printed by a university press.

Robert Spencer[1], Paul L. Williams and Andrew Bostom have no academic credentials regarding Islam. Several of the books do not specifically address Political Aspects of Islam(, like "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion" by Robert Spencer.)

I propose that all books under the Further Reading section be academic titles. So, Bat Ye'or may stay on the list as long as whatever book of hers provided relates to Political Aspects of Islam.--Kitrus 05:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there some guideline that suggests further reading sections should only list academic titles? Jayjg (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs complete rewriting

To paraphrse another editor above, this article looks like the ramblings of an opinionated undergrad who just completed his Introduction to Islam class. It should have sources and it ought to concentrate on the historical non-Islamist aspects of politics in Islam since there already is an Islamism article. --BoogaLouie 22:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should this article be deleted/merged?

The article on Islamism covers what is essentially the same topic; moreover, it is written better and makes proper use of reliable sources. I think this article should just be canned, and we should simply transfer any potentially useful information to the Islamism article. Or, we could perhaps merge them and put Islamism as a section within this article, since Islamism is basically political Islam in a specific (modern) context. I suppose the other alternative would be to make this article much more historically oriented and lift the focus off of modern trends within Islam. As of right now, the two articles cross each other so much that this basically looks like a diffuse version of the other article. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)