Talk:Islamism

"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.^[1][2][3][4]

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."^{[note 1]} 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.^{[note 2]} 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).^{[note 3]} 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).^{[note 4]}

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)

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.^[1][2] These movements emerged in the 20th century in response to Colonialism, Secularism, and Western influence,^[3][4] and vary widely in methods and goals — from democratic participation to revolutionary activism.^[5][6] The term’s meaning remains debated and is often used differently across contexts, including media, policy, and scholarly analysis.^[7][8] 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.^[9][10][11] "

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)

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.^{[12][13][14][15]} 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.^{[16][17][18][19][20]} It is often not used by those it describes.^[21][22] 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)

You are wellcome to propose a better word that can describe the term. I'm not a native english speaker. ShadowZentrix (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

What we have is fine. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

"we have" ? what are you referring to? ShadowZentrix (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

WHat our artocel now says is fine, it does not need any work, as such there is no need to propose better wording, we already have it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

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)