Islamic activism is not monolithic. Rather, it “encompasses a broad spectrum, not necessarily coherent or consistent across movements.”47 Indeed, the contemporary Islamic landscape is noticeably marked by intellectual diversity and political dissimilarity, where several factions
with sharply inconsistent ideological interpretations and political stands claim to monopolize the truth. It is, therefore, vitally important to categorize Islamic groups in terms of their geopolitical discourse and cultural tolerance. While addressing Islamic activism, American policymakers often failed to draw a clear distinction between the militant trends, which oppose political compromise, and instead adopt violent means, and the moderates “who advocate a peaceful approach to social transformation,……[and adopt] the mainstream Islamic rejection of violence.”48 as lack of distinction has, deliberately or undeliberately, resulted into pursuit of groundless policies towards Islamic activism, generating further circumstantial congestions. To be sure, labeling those Islamic activists who invoke Islam as a source of political guidance has largely been influenced by such factors as misconceived geopolitical images and a lack of scientifically obtained knowledge on the subject. The use of appropriate terminology constitutes the key element in shaping the accurate image of the case under study. Hence, improper identification of political groups is not only misleading, but also prejudicial. The western collective attitude towards Islamism has considerably been shaped by the connotations of such facile labels as fundamentalism, Jihadism, and extremism, which have increasingly been gaining wide currency in both the media and intellectual community, reinforcing the stereotypically conceptualized geopolitical image. However, the most prevailing terms denoting Islamic activism are as follows:
First, ‘fundamentalism’, which originated in the United States in the 1920s, denoting Protestant Christians who “sought to reaffirm their belief in the literal text of the Bible and the fundamentals of Christian belief…….these Christians called themselves fundamentalists.”49 While the term acquired a pejorative association in western culture, it holds an entirely different meaning within the Islamic literature. There fundamentalists are those talented scholars who possess the required intellectual capacity to appropriately interpret the text, and hence create the standing instructions for the issuance of a religious judgment (fatwa). Fundamentalists as such are highly admired. Islamic sources, instead, use the term ‘extremist’ to refer to those who adopt a very strict interpretation of Islam.
Second, coined by the French philosopher, Voltaire, the term ‘Islamism’ dates to the mid- eighteenth century, where it was used as a synonym for Islam. At the turn of the twentieth century this term disappeared and was replaced by the Arabic term ‘Islam’. With the rise of
Islamic political activism, ‘Islamism’ was resurrected to distinguish Islam as a faith from the political ideology that Islamists embrace. Some scholars have recently begun to refer to Islamism as a synonym for ‘political Islam’, connoting the mainstream Islamic variant that advocates peaceful means for socio-political ghange.50
Third, associated with its pejorative implication, the term ‘Jihadism’ has widely been deployed to stigmatize those Islamic activists who espouse violence, targeting both the U.S and ruling regimes in the Middle East, whom these activists perceive as not only inconsistent with Islamic rule, but, more importantly, adversarial entities impeding the progress of the Islamic revivalist project. While the term ‘Jihad’ has its origin in the Quran and Sunna, denoting the struggle in the path of God, it has been reproduced to label those Islamists who embrace violence as Jihadists. True, these violent acts have largely been carried out in the name of Jihad, but the mainstream Islamists have condemned them, denying their association with the true Jihad as presented by Islamic doctrines. Thus, “to use Jihad interchangeably with terrorism is not only inaccurate, but also counterproductive.”51
Although the current Middle Eastern scene is replete with various Islamic schools of thought, three major trends have predominantly been monopolizing the leading role, politically, intellectually, and socially. While their existence is commonly grounded in the primary aim of restoring the lost Islamic greatness, their positions towards other related issues sharply diverge, illustrating the non-monolithic character of Islamic activism. Indeed, literal traditionalists, radicals, and the moderates constitute, by and large, the most important forces of the Islamic movement. Unified by the generic aspiration of Islamization of state and society (ultimately to regain the primacy of the united umma) these forces adopt diverse perspectives on such central issues as: democracy, violence, human rights (as universally recognized), cultural tolerance, and modernization.
1- Literal-minded tradionalism: referred to in Arabic as Salafiyya (the faith of the devout ancestors, notably Prophet’s companions), this school of thought advocates literal understanding of the sacred texts. Exemplified by the official religious establishment of Saudi Arabia (largely labeled as Wahhabis), literal traditionalism has assertively been introducing itself as the most authentic interpreter of the Islamic text, almost monopolizing the truth, and claiming true imitation of the Prophet’s path. Its “most notable exponent was the great fourteen-century
[scholar] Ibn Taymiyya, whose work served as the primary reference.”52 Literal traditionalists not only oppose the political agenda that Islamic political activism embraces, but also adopt supporting attitude towards the ruling authoritarianism. Unlike other Islamists, literal traditionalists (or salafis as widely known) are not concerned with the quest for power. Hence they are apparently averse to such values as political pluralism, freedom, and human rights, equating them with westernization. Advocating theological, ethical, and educational reforms, they tend to impose a highly conservative interpretation on the social and personal lives. Summing up, Salafiyya corresponds to a school of thought rather than organized group. And the Salafis, notably the ulama (religious scholars) are accused, mainly by the radicals, of legitimizing despotism through misleading interpretation of the Islamic texts, and, as a result, obstructing the desired socio-political change.
2- Radicalism: the term, in its broader sense, has stereotypically been used to identify those Islamist groups that adopt an extremist interpretation of the texts at the intellectual and moral levels, whether or not this bigoted understanding is transformed into violent act. However, for the purpose of this research, radicalism refers to those Islamist factions that fanatically resort to militant violence as a vehicle for socio-political change. Islamic radicalism, as such, has widely been conceived to be a product of objective and subjective elements. Admittedly, such environmental causes as suppression of freedom, socio-economic deprivation, and prevalence of political despair, coupled with subjective factors such as “the tendency to understand the text literally…….as well as lack of knowledge of history,”53 led to the emergence of this radical trend. The resurgence of Jihad, the application of sharia (the Islamic code of laws) and regaining the sovereignty of the umma have constituted the central ideological terms that guide the political vision of militant radicalism. While its advocates, according to a Gallup poll, 54 comprise only 7% of the Muslim population, radicalism has aggressively been reinforcing its effectiveness. Unsurprisingly, groundless American policies, the abject failure of the Middle Eastern ruling elites, and the exclusion of moderate political Islam have interactively fueled armed violence, and, to great extent, justified this radical political orientation. Exemplified by Al Qaeda and its associates, militant radicalism has firmly been evolving politically, mobilizing considerable segments of Muslim youth, and hence enlarging its sphere of influence, from Pakistan to North Africa, and Arabian Peninsula (notably Yemen and Saudi Arabia) to south Asia.
3- Moderate political Islam: descriptive terms have always been controversial, carrying different meanings to different people, in different places at different times. The term ‘moderate’ is no exception. While detailed treatment of literal tradionalism and militant radicalism is beyond the scope of this research, moderate political Islam- in relation to American foreign policy- is essentially the core theme. Thus, it is extensively addressed in the subsequent pages. It is, therefore, sufficient here to state that, mainly represented by Muslim Brothers- as a school of thought- moderate Islamists constitute the overwhelming majority within the Islamic stream, preeminently dominating the Middle Eastern socio-political scene. The moderates are “a collection of national groups with differing outlooks…… [nonetheless, they] all reject global Jihad [as viewed by militant radicalism] while embracing elections and other features of democracy.”55 While faithfully devoted to their ideological legacy of establishing an Islamic state, implementation of sharia, and restoration of Islamic supremacy, moderate Islamists have noticeably developed pragmatic political rhetoric that advocates “peaceful transfer of power, check and balances, citizens’ participation, neutrality of public authorities in approaching multiple religious and ethnic identities, and tolerance of diversity.”56 Indeed, the evolutionary geopolitical discourse that the moderates have progressively developed tends to function as a vehicle for the publically desired socio-political change, seriously challenging the elite- dominated regimes. “Well rooted in the social and cultural fabric of Arab countries,”57 moderate Islamists have widely been viewed to be the answer to the region’s aggregating predicaments. Their embrace of such universal values as the rule of law, human dignity, and pluralism signaled their relative conformity with democracy. Yet, Islamists’ political discourse needs to unambiguously address such areas as gender equality, civility of the state, and political rights of the non-Muslim minorities.
In sum, as Richard Haass observed, “Islam will increasingly fill the political and intellectual vacuum in the Arab world and provide a foundation for the politics of a majority of the region’s inhabitants. Arab nationalism and Arab socialism are things of the past.”58 But the question is what kind of Islam is potentially capable of filling that political and intellectual vacuum? The foregoing argument suggests that the major competitors are the radical militants and the moderates. Lack of political vision, intolerance, and fanaticism contributed to the failure of radicals to develop a realistically appealing reforming project, and hence reduced their struggle to a mere aimless violent act. Moderate political Islam possesses the potentiality to dominate the
political sphere of the Middle East provided that, as Condoleezza Rice suggests, promoting democratic development remains a top priority for the United States.59 Moderate political Islam has undeniably been reinforcing its centrality. Thus, its exclusion would not only perpetuate authoritarianism, but also justify extremism and hence draw considerable segments of youth to violence. As Joseph Nye holds, “the United States and its allies will win only if they adopt policies that appeal to those moderates and use public diplomacy effectively to communicate that appeal.”60 To be sure, uncertainty marks the Middle Eastern political scene. Yet, the future of Islamism in general and moderate political Islam in particular, has apparently been linked to certain geopolitical circumstances.