It’s a shorthand and as such is not perfect. But it pretty much encapsulates the violent impulses of the modern violent Islamists ( not a better term, as not all Islamists are violent ). But its use is pretty universally applied as above - I’ve never heard the term jihadist used to describe to anyone occupied with an inner jihad.
One can use Kepel’s longer term, but that’s just as cumbersome, because you potentially have to explain the difference between early salafists and the quite different salafist-jihadists.
Either is better than Islamofascist however, which has always seemed more emotive and ultimately obfuscatory to me.
Jihad is an extremely misunderstood word. Ask the average person what it means, and you will probably hear “holy war.” This problem is, in part, caused by the use of “jihadist.”
It doesn’t matter if Jihad is misunderstood. The fact that “Jihadist” has a recognized, common usage means it has a specific meaning. Likewise, for “Islamist”.
We can use a mouthfull of words to differentiate people who follow a path of Jihad that involves bloodshed and those who do not, or we can use “Jihadist” to mean those who follow a violent path of Jihad.
On the one hand you are correct, but on the other you have the cart before the horse. The notion of jihad as “holy war” led to the use of “jihadist.” You’re a relatively recent member, so let me assure you we’ve been over this is some detail more than once in my ten years on this board ;).
But again, jihad as a violent struggle ( i.e. the ‘Lesser Jihad’ ) is the term violent Islamist groups use themselves and it has plenty of classical backing. While the usage of jihad as an inner struggle with ones ownself also has a long pedigree ( primarily in the medieval period with quietist Shi’a jurists ), it has only become prominent in more modern times.
Yes, confusion over the issue is certainly possible, but I still say as shorthand it is the better than most alternatives. What one word descriptor do you prefer :)?
I’m not sure why you are pursuing this line of argument. You and those you oppose are actually on the same side of the argument, but you appear to be picking nits with accepted definitions.
Jihadist is the word–that had no prior meaning in English–that has been applied to those people who have chosen to declare war on Western values, invoking, (correctly or incorrectly), the word jihad in their rhetoric.
It is similar to words like anti-semitic, a word coined explicitly to mean a person prejudiced against Jews even though Arabs are also semitic peoples, or homophobe, a word used to indicate an extreme prejudice against homosexuals, even when they are not actually fearful, (phobic), of homosexuals.
The words jihadist and Islamist have entered the English language with particular meanings. Railing against their use because you can create a separate meaning based on manufactured etymology is rather pointless because the etymology to which you point was never part of their coinage in English.
It is misleading and an appeal to emotion in the context used most commonly now.
I couldn’t speak to the details, but I get the impression that among the varying factions, the ideologies are chosen for their popular appeal by those who control the faction. Some may be deeply rooted in religion, but others seem more driven by a lust for power, and don’t intend to share that power with religious leaders should they gain it. Fascism, in the sense of gaining strength from a united Arab or Islamic nation of enormous size, population, and resources is a tempting goal for these groups.
I think Iran fears this end as much as they fear Israel and the West also. The infighting among the various factions certainly stands in the way of this happening now, but the politcal structure among Islamic and Arab nations and cross-national political movements have changed in nature many times in my lifetime, and will probably continue. It is one of the tightropes the US walks with continued involvement in the region. Our greatest mistake would not be allowing disparate rogue nations to form, but inducing anti-western sentiments strong enough to allow broad unification.
Obama gets criticized for his positions on these subjects, but a perception that the US will be influenced by local political concerns, and not just act autonomously with only our own interests in mind, is a way to prevent unification around anti-Western sentiment. This point seems to be lost on many in this country.
I do not however, know many of the details of the national, political, and religious structures.
often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
**
Islamofascism certainly conveys the wider definition of oppressive dictatorial control as well as many elements of the narrow definition.
Using the word as a noun is an accurate description of someone who wishes to impose Islam as a dominant political force through the use of violence.
^ I was actually going to post something like that, but I realized I’d be fine if we changed the word to be less ambiguous to those who think it confusing.
A Takfiri**(from the Arabic word تكفيري) is a Muslim who practices Takfir, which is to accuse other Muslims of apostasy. The term Takfir derives from the word kafir (impiety) and is described as when "…one who is, or claims to be, a Muslim is declared impure. **
Nobody has heard of the word takfiris and if they looked it up it wouldn’t apply to Al Quada-type groups who are attacking non-Muslim groups.
Worst examples you could think of, both Iraq and Syria were ruled by people belonging to a religious minority (especially in Syria), the last thing they would have wanted was to have religion in their way. Besides Arab Nationalism (and, later, Pan-Arabsim) was mostly coined an designed by Christian Arabs, they too wouldnt have wanted religion to muddy things up for them.
The only historical Muslim-Fascism connections I could see would have been:
-the Great Mufti of Jerusalem
-Bosnians auxiliaries to the Waffen SS
-Sadat, who actively tried to get some German help against British rule.
Not a very substantiable crop.
It’s more to do with WW2 fetishism, and having the Nazis remembered forever as the ultimate bad guys, if you got nothing in the way of arguments, go for knee-jerk reactions (Obama is a nazi is a good example).
“Oppressive theocrats”. Of course, that doesn’t get the all-important word “Islam” in there and invites comparison to our own theocratic political factions. Islamic theocracy bad, Christian theocracy good.
Fascism is not a curse word. It describes a right-wing sort of collectivism where the community has rights over the individual. Fascist actually describes most political thinking in the region.
Which oppressive governments does al Qaeda support? They are actively opposed to pretty much every government in the region and the world. The only government they ever had any connection to is/was the Taliban, but that is/was more a marriage of convenience than actual support.
There are some terrorist groups that get support from governments (Hamas is a good example), but these groups are not ones that are usually referred to as the “islamofacists,” a term that is used for al Qaeda and its offshoots. If al Qaeda is anything, they are anarchists–al Qaeda has never given a clear articulation of what would happen if they “won.”
al Qaeda kills more Muslims than non-Muslim. The takfir viewpoint underlies al Qaeda’s actions.
For a fuller description of the takfir movement, see Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower, chapter 6 “The Base.”
Yes, most of them were Muslims. I’m not saying they wanted a religious state, but those countries are as strongly tied to Islam as the US is to Christianity.
It is interesting to see the variety of ways everybody has interpreted this subject. So I think** BigT **and others are right that we need an unambiguous term for this subject.