This is the first section of an article published today on spiked. The full version is available for spiked subscribers to read here.
At a time when political language is routinely muddled, there can be few topics more confused than that of Islam and Islamism. The failure to make a clear distinction between the two – an error across the political spectrum – makes it harder to understand the true dynamics of Islamist movements, and particularly their relationship with the left. Indeed, those ‘progressives’ who align themselves with Islamists are often described as ‘useful idiots’ or cowardly ‘appeasers’. But when Islamism is properly understood, it becomes clearer why the left has such an affinity with it.
Although the term is often used in public debate, the precise meaning of Islamism is typically unclear. It is not synonymous with more observant or fundamentalist Muslims. Its true character was well summarised by Bassam Tibi, a Syrian-German political scientist, who said: ‘Islamism is about political order, not faith. Nonetheless, it is not mere politics, but religionised politics’. Essentially, Islamism is best seen as a form of politics in a religious wrapping.
Islamism first emerged against the backdrop of anti-colonial struggles in the wake of the First World War. But unlike the radical nationalist movements that initially gained power in the Arab world, like that led by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, Islamists did not aspire to embrace the benefits of modernity for those living in poorer parts of the world. On the contrary, Islamist movements were implacably hostile to cultural modernity, democracy and liberal values. They were also extremely sceptical of the nation state, if not outright hostile to it. Instead, they aspired to some kind of nizam Islami or new Islamic order, transcending national boundaries in the name of a shared vision.
The remainder of this article can be read HERE by spiked subscribers.