What is Islamism?

Following the publication of the manifesto against Islamism in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten which was, in my opinion, a poor and dangerous way to tout the values of secularism, the rush by right-wing bloggers and others to support the manifesto requires a closer look at what Islamism actually is.

Islamism, it seems, is widely defined by those who oppose it as compromising of the drive by militant Muslim extremists to impose their world view on the rest of us and to subjugate its followers.

That is not the only definition. Via The Guardian (Oct 2005), Soumaya Ghannoushi, researcher at the School of Oriental and African Studies and a columnist on al-Jazeera.net, offered a different view:

Islamism, like socialism, is not a uniform entity. It is a colourful sociopolitical phenomenon with many strategies and discourses. This enormously diverse movement ranges from liberal to conservative, from modern to traditional, from moderate to radical, from democratic to theocratic, and from peaceful to violent. What these trends have in common is that they derive their source of legitimacy from Islam, just as Latin American anarchist guerrillas, communists, social democrats and third-way Blairites base theirs on socialism. To view such a broad canvas through the lens of Bin Laden or Zarqawi is absurd.

And, for those who would disagree with Ghannoushi's perspective, a quick trip to dictionary.com offers both definitions:

1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.

2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.

This manifesto failed to distinguish its criticism of tenets of the Islam religion and the actual practices, which vary widely. Thus, by equating "Islamism" with "totalitarianism", it only serves to further confuse a public worldwide that is still attempting to understand what Islam is really about. This is just the same type of straw man that conflates secularism with evil in some people's minds. If we are to learn and progress, we must be willing to understand the facts.

I do not object to criticism of any religion or political system. However, it is incumbent upon critics to clearly identify what it is they are discussing if they wish to invite further debate by issuing public declarations such as this manifesto.