An interesting question might be: what do all these movements have in common, apart from claiming to being ‘Islamic’ (which might be about the only thing they agree on)?
I’d guess they all want some sort of theocratic government… though exactly which flavor probably varies a lot from one group to another?
This is a good topic. I’ve got a limited perspective from talking to my in-law about Islam but this fellow’s not a high-standing scholar. The most I know is from my world history class in middle school -in sum, it covered the prophet Muhammad, his sons and later territorial expansions, and the pillars of Islam. I thought it was nice to know but never studied it further.
Salafi jihadis are the ones that most closely align with what people think of as “radical Islam”. They reject modern developments in Islam, they are true originalists want to live under a form of Islam that they believe prevailed in the first 3 generations after Muhammad. The jihadi are the violent ones, but not all Salafis are jihadi.
Many of the other groups that are considered “radical Islamic terrorists” are regional movements to push out what they see as Western encroachment. It seems to me that they rally around Islam less because they desire a theocracy, but because if you’re trying to take over a region, you need some ideology as a source of power, and few nations in that region are stable or homogenous enough to support any coherent form of nationalism. Hizbollah is trying to drive Israel and the West out of their neighborhood. Hamas wants the same in Gaza, IS wanted the same in Iraq and Syria, Al-Qaeda wanted the west out of the Arabian peninsula, the Taliban maintains regional control in Afghanistan and part of Pakistan. All of them rally around Islamic fundamentalism because that’s proven to be a source of motivated recruits who are willing to do violence.
So a short answer is that many of these groups are motivated by getting the West and Israel out of their sphere of influence. This implies a need for a unifying ideology and governing strategy, and since nationalism and ethnicity are too fragmented in that area, the only thing that serves the bill is a desire for a return to the past, and specifically a fundamentalist Islamic dream of how everything was pure and righteous in the early days of Islam.
Some of these groups do say “all countries” but that’s really more of a marketing message. They’re not sincerely aiming to establish a caliphate in Sweden or Bolivia. It’s more about establishment of Muslim control in the the traditionally Muslim parts of the world, as an effort to displace Western encroachment. And Israel is seen as the deepest and most insulting sin in that area, so most of them want eradication of Israel to some degree.
Sounds about right to me. From my perspective as an outsider, the impression I get is that real issues in both the case of Christianity and Islam is that these divisions aren’t about the fine points of doctrine, they are about who is in charge / who get’s to keep the money from the collection basket.
Here is the writing of Ruhollah Khomeini, which appears to explain a good part of the Iranian Revolution’s ideas:
The Revolution is, of course, the basis for the current government of Iran.
I see this on page 47:
The work is both deeply repetitive and disorganized, so it’s hard to find anything since it’s hard to determine whether there will be any new content or just another repeat and if there was going to be new content then what new idea that might introduce, but my read of the first 50 pages or so would be that the Iranian regime mostly believes that the Muslims need to be under the rule of a single Executor of the Law, taking the place of Mohammed or other historical leaders who ensure that God’s law is followed.
They don’t seem to necessarily think that the world needs to be conquered but they do see outside, non-Islamic influence as actively harmful to God’s law and would almost certainly act to destroy any such force. Whether that would follow with forced conversion or not, I would read the above to say, “yes”.
There may be some argument that non-Islamic people can persist so long as they keep to themselves, but I’d take it as being understood that this is liable to simply delay the inevitable. At some point, someone will get that community in trouble and, consequently, get their group forcibly converted. Eventually, we would probably expect all of Earth to be under Islamic rule and, specifically, under the rule of the Executor.
Though that’s not particularly typical of what people mean by “Radical Islam” (in 2025 America at least).
The Iranian revolution was Shia and very heavily based on communist revolutionary theories, not at all like the Salafist movements such as Al Queda and ISIS, which is what Americans nowadays associate with “radical islam”.
They wanted to create a modern state ruled as an Islamic theocracy, not a medieval caliphate
Asking Google the definition of “radical islam”, it is saying:
“Radical Islam” is a term used to describe interpretations of Islam that advocate for a more fundamentalist, often violent, approach to achieving their political and religious goals. It is characterized by a rejection of existing social and political orders and a desire to establish an Islamic state through violent means. This can include the use of terrorism, as well as the promotion of an ideology that rejects non-believers or those deemed apostates.
I’m not seeing any part of that which doesn’t apply to Iran.
If we compare to Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, they’re “fundamentalist” in that they do practice Sharia Law, but they aren’t trying to expand their borders or use violent means to convert others. They’re fundamentalist but not radical.
Yeah but it’s not what people in America (or the west generally) nowadays mean when they say “radical islam”. Maybe in 1980 they would but post 9/11 “radical islam” means Al Queda, ISIS, etc. To say the goals of the Islamic Republic of Iran are the same as Salafist movements like Al Queda is just plain wrong
Hell for starters Iran is a significant regional power, not a bunch of dudes in beards hiding in a cave. It’s goals are not that different to any country in the last few hundred years, make sure its foreign policy and economic interests succeed and it’s regional rivals fail. The fact Iran is a run as a Shia theocracy and it’s regional rivals are not is pretty minor part of that.
I assume something as least as bad as ISIS or the Taliban. It definitely wouldn’t be a good place to live in.
It would surely be more oppressive than a society with looser mores like where I live. It must feel to a devotee of any religion like they’re wading through untreated waste. I’m glad I’m more degenerate than them so I can live here.
I read a biography of one of Osama Bin Laden’s sons. He said that Osama Bin Laden had a hierarchical plan. It was something like:
Luckily he got stuck on step 1. The problem is that ‘radical Islam’ is not a unified movement. It is a far right wing, tribalistic movement and the issue with groups like that is that they all hate each other massively.
Groups like ISIL and Al Qaeda are Sunni. The Iranian government, the Houthis, Hezbollah, etc are all Shia. Sunni and Shia hate each other. Any global caliphate would probably see the sunnis try to kill off all the shia.
Its kind of like saying ‘what do white nationalists want’, but white nationalists hate each other as much, if not more, than they hate non-whites. Yeah white nationalists hate chinese people, black people, latinos, etc. But they also hate white liberals, white jewish people, white atheists, white union members. Also The protestant white nationalists hate the catholic white nationalists and both sects of christianity hate the mormon white nationalists.
When the white Nazis invaded the white areas of the USSR, they killed endless people. Then other white nations like the UK & US declared war on the Nazis. It wasn’t simply white vs Jewish, it was far more complex than that. Its the same with radical Islam.
From what I know of ‘radical Islam’, it breaks down across multiple fault lines.
Islam vs other beliefs (judaism, christianity, atheism, etc)
Sect of Islam (Sunni, Shia, Druze, etc etc)
Whether someone is extreme or pure enough
Tribal allegiances
Ethnic lines (Arab, Persian, etc etc)
etc.
For example, take ISIL and Al Qaeda. Both are muslims, both are Sunni, both are Arab. Both are radical right wing. You’d assume they’d get along since they have so much in common. But they don’t. ISIL feels that Shia muslims are their main enemies and Al Qaeda do not. They disagree on tactics.
The book I mentioned above also talked about how Bin Laden faced mistreatment in Afghanistan for being Arab. Arabs may consider themselves superior in their own land, but in Afghanistain they were seen as inferior.
If you want real life examples of places run by radical Islam, you can look at the Taliban, the ISIL caliphate in Syria and Iraq (which is mostly gone now) or maybe the Iranian government.
My point is that, there will never be a coalition of radical Islam strong enough to take over the world. Even when ISIL was taking over areas of the middle east, the Iranian government and Hezbollah (both radical Islamic groups) were fighting them because it was sunni vs Shia. ISIL and Hezbollah fight. ISIL and Al Qaeda fight. Hamas and Al Qaeda fight. There’s far too many purity tests and sectarian divisions for radical Islam to ever conquer the world.
Also I think after the Taliban took over in Afghanistan, a lot of soldiers got bored of having to just do paperwork all day now instead of fighting a war.
If “forced conversion” doesn’t appear in the source material, your inference of it is based on nothing but your imagination. How would you square this supposed “forced conversion” with:
-the fact that in the Islamic Republic of Iran certain seats in the legislature are reserved for Christian Iranians and others for Jewish Iranians
-the fact that historically the rulers of the Umayyad caliphate actively tried to discourage widespread conversion to Islam, because it would mean the loss of tax revenue
-the verse in the Qur’an that says “Let there be no compulsion in religion”
With the exception of Wahhabism, which is a bit older (18th century), all radical Islamic groups can be traced back to one guy in the late Victorian era you’ve never heard of, named Jamal al-Din. He usually used the appellation “al-Afghani,” though he wasn’t Afghan and he kept mysterious about his true origins and his true alignment. He chose for himself the role of international man of mystery like the Comte de St. Germain. British intelligence suspected him of being a Russian spy and noted his ability to take on the identity of many different nations. His mind had an affinity for political intrigue in secret societies and he went around scheming to subvert the governments of Egypt, the Ottoman Empire, and Qajar Persia.
Iran’s Islamic Revolution, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Salafism, and every other radical or fundamentalist movement in Islam that started in the 20th century can be traced back to this one dude who fomented Islam-based political upheaval in the modern world. It was basically his invention.
Right. Although I would argue the reason they hate each other, when it comes down to it, is that the leader(s) of each group want to be the ones in charge. Everything else is just an excuse / change they made up / minor point of difference they decided to emphasize / etc., so that each individual leader could justify to his followers why he should be the one calling the shots. Of course that’s no different than in any other religion (see King Henry VIII and Pope Clement VII for a Christian example).
Interesting and edifying as always thank you.