Talk:Islamism

On my contributions

Hi everyone. My contributions to the article have been undone by someone who registered on Wikipedia very recently (2 January 2024). However, I would like to state here that I will reinstate my changes, because all my file changes are directly related to the topic of the article. My corrections to the text are also correct. Greetings. Aybeg (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no reason to replace the pre-existing files with photos of demonstrations rather than photos of well-known Islamists as included before. OrebroVi (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding tendentious file content to the page and unjustified *removal* of old content is not permitted. You have provided no defense for the changes, especially when it comes to removing agreed-upon pre-existing content. Do not continue reverting without defenses; see Wikipedia:EW. OrebroVi (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:TENDENTIOUS OrebroVi (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Me? Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No. Was adding on to the earlier context to the issue with @Aybeg's edits. OrebroVi (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I'm not sure, but this curent discussion seems relevant to the OR issue. WP:NPOVN#Removal of a file from almost every article. Despite the section heading it's actually about the addition of a file, then its removal. Doug Weller talk 11:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

My changes on files is about the topic. How can you consider the visual acts of Islamism as "tendentious" editing? The protesters, activists, and militants in the photos are Islamists and journalist Tahar Djaout were killed by an Islamist organisation. The reason of adding the portraits of some contemporary politicians around the world is to protect Islamist ideology and its acts. There is no any mistake in my changes. Aybeg (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Please read wp:not and wp:or, we go by what wp:rs say, not what we think. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Your proposed additions would be more relevant to List of Islamist terrorist attacks or Islamic extremism. WP:UCR is not welcome. OrebroVi (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Salafi terrorism and Salafi Jihadism

Could u write more about Salafi Jihadism in ideology section and in the beginning? IS (Daesh), Jabhat al-Nusra, Boko Haram, Salafia Jihadia they have all one ideology Salafi jihadism and sunni sect called Salafism!!!!Lerenpi (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit Revert by @user:GorillaWarfare

"https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100012444" @GorillaWarfare Check the reference link. 119.154.238.97 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE, we typically avoid "... is a word for ..." or "... is a term for ..." or similar wording unless there is very good reason not to, because the article is about the topic, not the word. The word itself can of course be discussed within the article, as it is in this article later on in Islamism#Terminology. But saying that this is a "coined term" makes no sense — is there any term that is not coined? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully you have read this. @GorillaWarfare 119.154.238.97 (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: – Thank you for the MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE clarification. I understand the preference to avoid “is a term for…” constructions. However, I still believe the current sentence —

> "Islamism is a range of religious and political ideological movements that believe that Islam should influence political systems."

— is too vague and relies heavily on a simplified dictionary-style phrasing. It closely mirrors the Cambridge Dictionary definition: "The belief that Islam should influence political systems" (Cambridge Dictionary).

The problem is that this phrasing could apply to many Muslims generally, not just those who identify with or are labeled as part of *Islamist* movements. It blurs the distinction between personal belief and organized political ideology. More importantly, it doesn’t reflect the **modern, contested, and politicized nature** of the term *Islamism*, as extensively discussed in academic literature.

To address this, I’d like to propose a revised version that avoids the discouraged “term for” structure, while improving accuracy and neutrality:

> Islamism is a modern political term used to describe a range of ideological movements that seek to implement Islamic principles in government and public policy. The term is not found in classical Islamic texts and is used with varying meanings in academic and political discourse, often contested by those it is applied to.

This phrasing:

• Avoids the discouraged "term for" construction.
• Clarifies the modern, externally applied, and ideologically varied nature of the label *Islamism*.
• Bases the definition on widely accepted academic sources rather than simplified dictionary entries.
• Helps prevent conflation between Islam (as a religion) and Islamism (as a political project or category).

I’d be happy to refine this collaboratively if needed. Thanks again for your input. 119.154.238.97 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Historically, the term Islamism was used in Western European languages as a synonym for Islam itself — much like one might say "Christianism" instead of "Christianity." In English and French texts from the 18th and 19th centuries, "Islamism" typically referred simply to the religion of the Muslims. This usage had no ideological or political connotation. Over time, this older usage faded, and by the early 20th century, the term "Islam" became the dominant label for the religion. The term "Islamism" was later reappropriated, particularly in Western academic and media discourse during the mid-to-late 20th century, to describe political movements seeking to implement Islamic principles in government and public life.

As noted by Edward Said in Covering Islam (1981, p. 6), the term "Islamism" was "once an old-fashioned synonym for Islam." Similarly, the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World explains that in the 18th and 19th centuries, "Islamism" referred simply to the religion of Islam and only in the later 20th century did the term acquire political overtones. Tariq Ramadan notes that the term was used interchangeably with "Islam" in earlier Western texts, but its meaning shifted during the 20th century to signify political ideology (Islam and the Arab Awakening, OUP, 2012, p. 33). Carool Kersten also confirms that "Islamism" was historically a European term for the Islamic religion, with its political usage emerging much later (A History of Islam in Indonesia, Edinburgh UP, 2017, p. 97).

119.154.238.97 (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I really don't have a strong opinion; my concern was avoiding "Islamism is a coined term used to describe..." I would note your proposed edit still contains the "... is a term for ..." structure, though. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Notes

References

Request for Comment: Lead sentence wording and definition

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close due to lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. (non-admin closure) SmittenGalaxy | talk! 18:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

---

This is a formal Request for Comment regarding the lead sentence of the *Islamism* article. While discussion is ongoing above, I believe wider input is needed on the framing and definition of "Islamism" in the article's opening line. Please see full discussion and sources above. Summary of proposed change below:

Current lead: > Islamism is a range of religious and political ideological movements that believe that Islam should influence political systems.

Proposed lead: > Islamism is a modern political term used to describe a range of ideological movements that seek to implement Islamic principles in government and public policy. The term is not found in classical Islamic texts and is used with varying meanings in academic and political discourse, often contested by those it is applied to.

Do editors agree with revising the lead along these lines? 119.154.238.97 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't really think WP:RFCBEFORE has been satisfied here. The discussion, as noted by the proposer, is still ongoing. In addition, it is at this point just a dispute between two editors. Unless there's some other prior discussion I'm not aware of, an RfC doesn't seem to currently be the best venue for this. It would be much suited to just finish the discussion (the other editor hasn't even responded yet; this RfC was started half an hour after the proposer's last response) or go to WP:3O if no resolution can be reached. At that point, further steps can be taken to resolve this.

If there's no objection to the contrary, I'll remove this RfC notice in the morning once the proposer has seen and had a chance to respond to this. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Too early for RfC. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Discussion I think this gives a well ballanced view. CENTRE FOR MEDIA MONITORING on the use of this word

I would suggest that any change be based around this section:

"Emin Poljarevic, who wrote an entire article analysing the term Islamism in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics, gives the following guidance for usage:

The term Islamism at the very least represents a form of social and political activism, grounded in an idea that public and political life should be guided by a set of Islamic principles. In other words, Islamists are those who believe that Islam has an important role to play in organizing a Muslim-majority society and who seek to implement this belief. As such, Islamist activism is a public manifestation of religiously informed political will, often expressed as resistance to various types of competing ideas, policies, and even lifestyles." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukewarmbeer (talk • contribs) 07:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose it does not need changing, subtlety is for the body, not the first sentence of the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  Comment on RfC relevance – in response to @SmittenGalaxy and others

  Thank you, for raising concerns about the timing of this RfC. I understand the value of WP:RFCBEFORE and agree that RfCs should not be invoked lightly.

  However, I’d like to respectfully argue that this issue does merit broader community input at this stage, not simply because it’s a dispute between a few editors, but because:

  1. There is a deep-rooted framing issue with the lead sentence

  The current lead describes Islamism as:

  “a range of religious and political ideological movements that believe that Islam should influence political systems.”

  This overly simplified phrasing not only mirrors dictionary definitions like those in Cambridge, but also risks conflating ordinary Muslim beliefs with ideologically charged political movements. That distinction is at the very heart of how this term is understood — and misused — in modern discourse.

  2. Even supportive editors acknowledge that the term’s meaning is contested

  For example, editor @Lukewarmbeer quoted the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics:

  “The term Islamism at the very least represents a form of social and political activism….”

  Note: even here it is explicitly called a “term” — despite the earlier objection to “X is a term for…” phrasing. The point is not about grammar or MOS pedantry alone — it is about the nature of the subject, which itself is contested, contextual, and politically charged.

  The Centre for Media Monitoring also emphasizes the conflicting meanings and politicization of the term Islamism, stating:

  “The term has been used to refer to political Islam, terrorism, a synonym for Islam, and/or a mixture of these, often without clarity as to which is intended.”

  This confirms that a neutral and precise lead is essential, not simply for stylistic reasons, but to prevent misleading associations — especially where the term is often equated with extremism by media outlets.

  3. Wikipedia currently presents a biased secular-Western framing

  By adopting a lead that mirrors secular Western media usage (without attribution or qualification), Wikipedia risks reinforcing a particular ideological lens, rather than neutrally reflecting the diversity of perspectives. This not only affects accuracy, but also marginalizes the voices of scholars and communities who critique this framing — including Muslims, academics, and analysts.

  Conclusion

  While I appreciate the concerns about procedure, I respectfully request that this RfC remain open. The issue is not merely editorial but foundational to Wikipedia’s representation of a deeply politicized and globally contested term. The RfC provides an important opportunity to gather a range of informed views and find a more balanced and rigorous wording.

  Thanks again for the thoughtful discussion.

  ShadowZentrix (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  Additional Comment on Importance of Revising the Lead

  (Responding to @SmittenGalaxy, @Lukewarmbeer, and others)

  Beyond the procedural points, I’d like to underscore why this RfC remains essential — because the current lead sentence doesn't just raise editorial concerns, it raises serious ethical and representational concerns with how the term Islamism functions in public discourse.

  1. "Islamist" has become a derogatory label — even among those who know nothing about Islam

  In many Western societies, it is common knowledge that the term Islamist is used like a slur. Even children who have no understanding of Islam are growing up associating “Islamists” with danger or terror. They don't know what jihad means in its Islamic context (a struggle or striving in the path of God, which has spiritual and social meanings), yet they associate it with “killing people.” This isn't because of scholarly definitions — it's due to the politicized and weaponized portrayal of Islam in media and education.

  This leads to a social consequence, not just linguistic confusion:

  People, including Jews, Christians, atheists, and others who have no direct knowledge of Islamic teachings, begin to instinctively fear or oppose Muslims — not based on understanding, but because of how these terms like Islamism and jihadism have been framed. These labels are often repeated in contexts of violence and extremism, without explaining the vast ideological, theological, or ethical distinctions that exist among Muslims.

  2. Terms like “Islamist” are not neutral

  Let’s consider a parallel: Zionism. Not all Jews are Zionists; some even vocally oppose it. Yet, we would never label all Jews “Zionists” simply because some movements act under that ideology. Similarly, the Ahmadiyya community claims to be Muslim, but most of the Muslim world does not consider them so, due to their theological stance on prophethood. Outsiders may mistakenly label them Muslims — showing again how outsider labels can misrepresent internal religious realities.

  Now, look at Islamism. Unlike terms like “Christianism” or “Hinduism,” it isn’t used to neutrally describe a faith or even its political expressions. It is overwhelmingly used to demonize, caricature, and generalize Muslims, especially those who resist Western hegemony, or advocate for change in their own societies.

  In fact, one could argue that the people called “Islamists” are often just Muslims who oppose imperialism, injustice, or Western-backed oppression — and this resistance is politically reframed to associate them with terrorism or extremism.

  3. Wikipedia should not replicate politicized media framing

  The role of Wikipedia is to inform, not to reflect the biases of mass media. As long as the article adopts the framing that “Islamism is a movement that wants Islam to influence politics,” without historicizing or contextualizing the term, it continues to reinforce the idea that Muslim political expression is inherently suspicious.

  This not only misrepresents the diversity of views among Muslims, but it discourages people from understanding what Islam actually teaches, because they encounter the term Islamist as a loaded label before they even encounter Islam itself.

  4. Proposed lead respects complexity and avoids misrepresentation

  That’s why the proposed lead:

  Islamism is a modern political term used to describe a range of ideological movements that seek to implement Islamic principles in government and public policy. The term is not found in classical Islamic texts and is used with varying meanings in academic and political discourse, often contested by those it is applied to.

  …is far more accurate, reflective of scholarly consensus, and mindful of how the term functions in the real world.

  This isn’t about editorial subtlety; it’s about ethical clarity and linguistic honesty in how we represent an entire faith community and its expressions in a global encyclopedia.

  ShadowZentrix (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  All of your arguments are better suited for the above discussion, not here. This RfC has almost zero RFCBEFORE, and the proposed change as-is isn't necessary. The article lede is not for critical nuance, it's to summarize the most important points of the article. At most it would be warranted to mention the issue, but not only do I not feel it's necessary as has already been stated, this RfC is extremely premature.

  You're welcome to contribute to the discussion above this section, but I for now don't see any reason not to close this for procedural reasons until more substantial discussion can be had before opening an RfC. I'm going to go ahead and close this; please move any further comments above or in a new talk page section before opening another RfC. Thank you. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 18:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to correct the lead sentence in the article.

The current lead :

Islamism is a range of religious and political ideological movements that believe that Islam should influence political systems. Its proponents believe Islam is innately political, and that Islam as a political system is superior to communism, liberal democracy, capitalism, and other alternatives in achieving a just, successful society. The advocates of Islamism, also known as "al-Islamiyyun", are usually affiliated with Islamic institutions or social mobilization movements, emphasizing the implementation of sharia, pan-Islamic political unity, and the creation of Islamic states.

Proposed :

Islamism is a contested term used in political and academic discourse to describe a range of movements that seek to implement Islamic principles in public and political life. These movements emerged in the 20th century in response to Colonialism, Secularism, and Western influence, and vary widely in methods and goals — from democratic participation to revolutionary activism. The term’s meaning remains debated and is often used differently across contexts, including media, policy, and scholarly analysis. New proposal below - undergoing editing - Please contribute ShadowZentrix (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

While "term for" phrasing is discouraged per MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE, this version avoids that structure and emphasizes the contested usage, which is central to the subject matter. ShadowZentrix (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

"Islamism is a contested term used in political and academic discourse" Do any sources use the phrase "contested term"? The article as-is doesn't mention it, so it would go against WP:LEDE to include such a statement — especially the first sentence — without it being a major part of the article text much less in it at all. The terminology section does discuss the nuance behind it, but does not specifically say "contested term", nor is the lede such a place for this kind of nuance.

"to describe a range of movements that seek to implement Islamic principles in public and political life." No issue here, this is brought up multiples times throughout the article, and is a better clarification of the current lede.

"These movements emerged in the 20th century in response to Colonialism, Secularism, and Western influence, and vary widely in methods and goals — from democratic participation to revolutionary activism." Unless I'm mistaken, the lede does already go over this. No need to retread the same ground twice if it's already mentioned there.

"The term’s meaning remains debated and is often used differently across contexts, including media, policy, and scholarly analysis." If you want to insert "is a contested term", you've already covered saying that the meaning is debated. There's no need for both, especially when something similar to this excerpt has already been discussed earlier.

While I can understand wanting this information upfront, MOS:FIRST is pretty clear what the very first part of an article lede should be about. It's for non-specialist readers and meant to give a very broad overview of the entire article. These proposed changes would front-load a lot of information that is unnecessary to the lede onto the reader, especially when it's gone into in depth already in the article body. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @SmittenGalaxy for your close reading and engagement. I appreciate your points and would like to clarify why some of the proposed language is necessary and supported.

• "Contested term" – While the exact phrase may not appear verbatim in the article body, the contested nature of the term Islamism is well-documented in reliable sources:

• The Centre for Media Monitoring explains: "The term has been used to refer to political Islam, terrorism, a synonym for Islam, and/or a mixture of these, often without clarity as to which is intended." This confirms wide disagreement and ambiguity.
• Oxford Reference notes that the term has been used "in different contexts" and is "often confused with Islamic fundamentalism", showing it's context-dependent and not universally defined. (Source)
• Emin Poljarevic, in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics, discusses how the term is "interpreted differently by various scholars and commentators", reflecting disagreement even within academic literature.

Describing the term as "contested" is a precise summary of this ambiguity, and it reflects the due weight of sources that highlight disagreement in usage. I agree it could be better supported by expanding the "Terminology" section with this explicit wording for full compliance with WP:LEDE.

• "These movements emerged in the 20th century..." – While some historical framing exists in the article body, the lead as it stands lacks context for *why* "Islamism" developed. Most academic sources agree that it arose partly in response to colonial rule, Western influence, and secular nationalism:

• Nikki Keddie notes this in Modern Iran (Yale UP, 2006).
• Peter Mandaville similarly details these roots in Global Political Islam (Routledge, 2007).

Adding this line in the lead gives readers context and is supported per WP:LEAD, which permits a concise background when it explains the subject.

• "The term’s meaning remains debated..." – This clause is distinct from saying "contested term." It reinforces that usage varies not only between scholars but also across policy circles, media outlets, and regions. This directly reflects the article's Terminology section and aligns with sources like:

• Mohammed Ayoob, The Many Faces of Political Islam (University of Michigan Press, 2008).
• CfMM, which tracks multiple, shifting meanings in media and public discourse.

Overall, the goal is not to overwhelm the lead with nuance, but to meet neutral point of view obligations by signaling that Islamism is not a straightforward or universally agreed-upon concept. The proposed lead avoids the "term for" phrasing and gives readers an accurate, well-sourced overview.

Happy to refine wording further if consensus moves that way.

ShadowZentrix (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

And even then I emphasize that "Islamism" is a term and its usage shifted in this timeframe (20th century). Which should be portrayed in the lead. ShadowZentrix (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

" The term's modern usage—referring to organized movements seeking to implement Islamic principles in public and political life—emerged primarily in the 20th century, evolving from earlier European usage where "Islamism" was a synonym for Islam itself. "

While today Islamism is typically used to refer to specific political movements, it's important to acknowledge that the term originated not from within the Muslim world, but as an external label — first as a synonym for Islam itself in European languages, and later as a way to distinguish political expressions of Islam from the religion more broadly. This distinction, however, often blurs in practice, leading to confusion and stigmatization.

Many scholars and Muslim thinkers have argued that the label Islamism has been used — particularly in Western discourse — to "otherize" devout Muslims or portray their religious commitments as inherently political, threatening, or extremist. As Wael Hallaq, Edward Said, and others note, this framing artificially divides Islam (as peaceful or personal) from Islamism (as political or radical), when in fact many Muslims view their faith as a holistic system encompassing both personal piety and public ethics.

In this light, Islamism is not just a neutral descriptor. It often serves as a rhetorical device to marginalize Islamic values when expressed in political or societal contexts. As the Centre for Media Monitoring notes, its usage is inconsistent and frequently conflates mainstream Islamic practice with extremism.

Therefore, any lead or definition of the term should:

• Reflect its external and politicized origins,
• Acknowledge that it is a contested and debated label, and
• Avoid implying that Islamism is something separate from Islam in a way that misrepresents how Muslims themselves understand their faith.

This nuance is essential not only for factual accuracy but also for upholding Wikipedia's core principle of neutrality — especially when dealing with a term that has real-world implications for how Islam and Muslims are perceived globally. ShadowZentrix (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Explanation regarding tool-assisted comment

I would like to clarify that while I used an AI assistant to help structure and source some parts of my comment, the content was guided and reviewed by me. Using AI can be helpful for drafting and expressing ideas in accordance with Wikipedia policies, particularly for new users navigating complex topics like religion where editorial biases often shape articles. I take full responsibility for the substance of the comment. Per WP:TALK, contributions should be judged on their relevance and adherence to content policy, not the tool used to assist with formatting or structure. WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith) also encourages collaborative engagement without dismissing comments based solely on perceived authorship. I’m open to any content-based feedback or suggestions to improve clarity or neutrality. Thank you.

Note: This revision improves accuracy and neutrality in line with WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD. It avoids implying that Islamism refers solely to movements by clarifying that the term's modern usage emerged in the 20th century—evolving from earlier European usage where it was a synonym for Islam. This wording more faithfully reflects reliable sources and the body of the article, ensuring the lede summarizes the topic without undue bias or oversimplification.

Undergoing editing

Islamism is a contested term used in political, academic, and media contexts to describe efforts to implement Islamic principles in public and political life. Its contemporary usage—referring to a broad spectrum of actors, ideologies, and movements—including those who regard Islamic governance as superior to liberal democracy, communism, or capitalism in achieving a just society—developed primarily in the 20th century, as various religious actors and organizations responded to colonialism, secularism, and Western influence. During this period, the term evolved from earlier European usage where "Islamism" was simply a synonym for Islam. It is often not used by those it describes. Islamists, sometimes referred to as al-Islamiyyun, are associated with Islamic organizations or movements that emphasize the application of sharia, promote Islamic unity, and support political systems based on Islamic values.

To-Do:

Appropriating citations

Linked terms

Last sentence from: "Islamists, som... values" cite + links + fact chk

overall tone-check

ShadowZentrix (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree we need this change. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a good proposal, better than the current lead. 39.49.153.76 (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Saying the term is contested or controversial is an overstatment. All terms for political ideology have various meanings which can change depending on context. TFD (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Roollah-khomeini.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)