Islamists: A Kind of Fish That Swims

The term Islamism was coined in eighteenth-century France as a way of referring to Islam. Earliest known use of the term identified by the Oxford English Dictionary is 1747. By the turn of the twentieth century it *the term Islamism+ had begun to be displaced by the shorter and purely Arabic term Islam and by 1938, when Orientalist scholars completed The Encyclopedia of Islam, seems to have virtually disappeared from the English language1. The term Islamism is considered to have first begun to acquire its contemporary connotations in French academia between the late 1970s and late 1980s. From French, it began to migrate to the English language in the mid-1980s, and in recent years has largely displaced the term Islamic fundamentalism in academic circles2. The use of the term Islamism was at first "a marker for scholars more likely to sympathize" with new Islamic movements; however, as the term gained popularity it became more specifically associated with political groups such as the Taliban or the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, as well as with highly publicized acts of violence.3 In summation, the term Islamism enjoyed its first run, lasting from Voltaire to the First World War, as a synonym for Islam. Enlightened scholars and writers generally preferred it to Mohammedanism. Eventually both terms yielded to Islam, the Arabic name of the faith, and a word free of either pejorative or comparative associations. There was no need for any other term, until the rise of an ideological and political interpretation of Islam challenged scholars and commentators to come up with an alternative, to distinguish Islam as modern ideology from Islam as a faith4. The scholars and commentators Kramer is referring to are, of course, Orientalists. Muslim scholars and commentators have always seen, understood and called towards a complete and comprehensive application of Islams laws. Instruction to do so is clear throughout both the Quran and Sunnah. It was the adoption of this term by Muslim masses, perhaps through Western influenced intellectuals and philosophers, however that led to the kind of separation, isolation and resulting confusion that continues to plague the Muslim world today. The acceptance of the term Islamist as a reference to a subset group that exists within the universal set Muslims, has allowed many Muslims to believe that a secular interpretation of Islam is valid, and that abandoning Islams laws for secular laws is consistent with Islamic teachings. The adoption has effectively caused many Muslims to lose sight of some of the most essential meanings of tawheed - the
1

Coming to Terms, Fundamentalists or Islamists? Martin Kramer originally in Middle East Quarterly (Spring 2003), pp. 65-77
2 3

ibid ibid 4 ibid

very purpose behind our creation. Had these terms not been adopted, its possible that terms like secular Muslim would still sound as oxymoronic and nonsensical as theyre supposed to. Regrettably, secularist and liberalist values have in recent times become so accepted and even cherished throughout Muslim lands, that Muslim scholars are oftentimes unable or unwilling to make broad statements about their incompatibility with Islam, much less label them as heretical. Still, because of this inherent incongruity, and because of the injustice such philosophies have served to inflict upon the Muslim nation, these ideologies continue to lose their grip on the minds and hearts of Muslims everywhere. The Islamic revival has, of course, played an enormous part in correcting misperceptions over the past few decades. This is not least because it has reinstated the Islamic pillars, values and principles that allow us to perceive deviations from the path of guidance, and weigh up ideas with more even scales. And yet, the divide between Islamists and other Muslims continues to exist. After the Egyptian revolution, television presented itself as a major vehicle by which Islamic scholars could present political Islam to a nation that had been all but barred from listening to anything about that aspect of their religion. There was, of course, a catch to this potential opportunity: Practically all mainstream television stations are for the most part the very same stations that had been accepted or at the very least not censored by Mubaraks dictatorship. Because it goes without saying that Mubarak was not about to let political Islam be broadcast to over 80 million Egyptians (and many more viewers in surrounding Arab countries) via television stations in Egypt, he chose his presenters and TV hosts well. Regardless of the political school of thought these presenters ascribe themselves to, one thing is obvious It isnt Islamic. In fact, many of the most well-known (or perhaps notorious) presenters are vehemently against the application of Islam at any social, political or economic level. Indeed, many television personalities would appear to be outright anti-Islamic. With regards to Islamist guest appearances, therefore, a talk show host takes on a far more adversarial than presentational role, and hence, for the guest, the line between potential opportunity and potential trap becomes hazardously thin. So thin, in fact, that even a single word might serve to drag a guest across that line without his being aware. These tug o war interviews are the norm with Islamists, and hence audiences (or more likely spectators) find that theyre waiting to see a final result to an interview, as opposed to hear useful information around which they might form opinions that impact their lives. The legality of bikinis and alcohol are among the issues that usually find their way to the top of a hosts agenda. The average Egyptian citizen clearly has more important things to consider, but rarely finds the opportunity to listen to subjects of even average import while watching these programs.

Armed with the widely disseminated and consequently widely accepted notion that an Islamist holds beliefs or views that are different or more stringent than those a Muslim should hold, presenters start their interrogation sessions with an upper hand, while their guest is quickly perceived as guilty until proven innocent. The interview then commences with a barrage of loaded questions, inquiries regarding out-of-context quotes and attempts to illicit sensationalist statements that might further bolster the desired stereotype. Unfortunately, rather than attempt to dispel the notion of Islamism at its root, Islamists sometimes find themselves attempting to deny rulings that have always been accepted by Muslims, or to accept ideas and practices for which there is no textual basis. Clearly, this form of bridging the gap falls very short of being a remedy, much less an effective one, as clarity is the first casualty. Making matters clear is every religious authoritys first priority. At a general level, therefore, more emphasis should be placed on clarifying the categories of tawheed, with special attention paid to the issues that have, for a long time, been distorted by secularist and liberalist ideologies. The fact that legislation is a unique privilege of Allah, for instance, is something that must be communicated clearly and effectively. This is bound to make an enormous difference to a Muslims perception of his or her religion. Going to the root of the matter serves to uproot virtually all the arguments a presenter might make, as it forces them to either acknowledge the unequivocal verses that uphold Allahs sovereignty or to deny them outright. It is also the real means by which the perceived gap between Islamists and other Muslims might continue to narrow and, Allah willing, disappear altogether. Its always interesting how so many of the misconceptions that exist in the minds of Muslims can be cleared up simply by going back to the essential meanings of tawheed. This reminds me of a series of lectures given by Imam Albani called, Tawheed First, O Callers to Islam. The issue of Islamist vs. Muslim is really no exception to his advice, and the sooner we understand the comprehensiveness of the first pillar of Islam and that it touches every single aspect of our lives, the sooner we will see the inherent redundancy carried by the terms Islamist or Islamism. Until then, Islamists will simply be a kind of fish that swims.