Islamist activism is receiving more and more attention in both intellectual and political literature. In these narratives, Islamic movements and activity are frequently linked to terrorism. This, however, is a naive approach that disregards the dynamics and explanation of this event. To put it another way, a thorough study and discussion require an understanding of Islamism.
The origin of Islamic movements: why?
It is acceptable to say that the modern Islamic movement is a phenomena of the 20th century; earlier periods did not see the modern, mobilized Islamic movement. According to one interpretation, this indicates that Islamic movements and modernity both evolved at the same time. This does not necessarily imply that there is a causal relationship between the two, but simultaneity is evident.
Ironically, modernization appears to be one of the main causes of the rise of Islamic movements. It is safe to say that these movements are a reaction to modernization’s features that denoted the dominance of the West in the world, but it is also evident that contemporary Islamic movements mostly rely on modern tools and methods; in other words, Islamic movements had to adapt to the needs of the modern times in order to advance their cause.
Of course, making the claim that all Islamic movements followed the same trajectory, appeared at the same time, or that modernity had any bearing on their appeal would not be reasonable. But there are two related facts that should be highlighted. First, the governmental system in place where Islam was the primary religion practiced by the vast majority of people was controlled by an Islamic identity. Another topic entirely is whether it was actually Islamic or flawless. It may even be argued that these entities’ definitions and perceptions of Islam weren’t totally accurate or were defective in comparison to the original. This is a different situation, yet Islam had a significant influence in almost all of these organizations. In other words, Islam or something sprung from Islam was influencing or shaping both political administration and social life. As was the case with the Abbasids, the Emevis, the Seljukis, and in later eras, the Ottomans, this was also true of the Seljukis. Furthermore, these states or political players have never felt a setback that suggested Islam was in danger in their regions. They have fought the Europeans and occasionally one another, but none of these battles resulted in Islam’s so-called total defeat.
This began to alter in the 20th century, though, and for the first time Islam was weak in comparison to the Occidental world. This was a setback on a political as well as a psychological one, and Islamic countries undoubtedly felt it greatly. Islamic philosophers like Abduh tried to reconcile Islam with the notion of evolution because the defeat was so evident. This basically meant that they had nothing to contribute in opposition to what the West was putting forth; the least they could do, then, was to show that Islam was neither opposed to or incompatible with the idea of evolution. The national anthem’s words were written by Mehmet Akif, a well-known Turkish poet with a very Islamist aesthetic, who was particularly anxious to ensure that Western civilisation would recognize the significance of Islam.
Another explanation is the Islamic world’s political failure; the West has continued to maintain unquestionable supremacy in Islamic geographies and lands. The number of autonomous Islamic states in the international political system of the 20th century is very low. This has been the case for a very long time; it’s important to keep in mind this fact to get a better grasp of the key reasons behind the Islamic movements. The Islamic world’s countries have only recently attained freedom.
Islamic movements therefore formed in response to and in reaction to this dominance. Of course, there were other ways to respond to colonial aspirations; nationalist opposition movements are a prime example. In fact, this was the most common way of responding to colonial aspirations in all subsequent freedom campaigns. Nationalist movements in Islamic countries, especially Arabic countries, have emerged relatively recently; furthermore, this appearance was not truly and authentically nationalist. However, almost none of Islamic nations have gone through the process of nationalization as defined and exported in modern times. In conclusion, it is reasonable to assert that the Islamic movements took on the role of the primary dynamic or engine in the opposition to and response to Western dominance.
Islamist activism is centered on the idea of jihad.
Jihad, a resurgent phenomenon of the 20th century, seems to have provided the primary impetus for the Islamic movements, which open up new vistas for Islamic thinking and practice but also stir up debates because of the tactics they use. Islamic movements and jihad, which serves as their foundation, have obvious significance because they can respond to the need of Muslims in the West for a genuine identity. They are seen as a threat in Western nations due to this high potential because they fear that the Muslim populations would be persuaded or inspired to engage in jihad or terrorism. This essay aims to examine the nature and origins of Islamic movements as well as their interactions with the West.
Jihad has traditionally held a prominent place among Muslims, especially during the early phases of the propagation of Islam. It is a belief that the prophet of Islam strongly supported. Devoted Muslims have long given jihad value since they saw it as a divine obligation, which was important in dictating how they lived and participated in activity. The concept’s significance, however, lost some of its prominence once Islam emerged as the religion of choice in many countries. In the 20th century and its aftermath, jihadist activity increased once more; this time, it was organized into Islamic movements and has since become a source of inspiration for devout Muslims.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that the most evident and conspicuous cause driving Islamic-inspired groups to action is jihad. It should be mentioned that before to the 20th century, the Islamic world did not place as much importance on this idea. However, the Islamic movements’ response and response to Western dominance has been through an emphasis on jihad. As a result, it would be appropriate to conclude that the Islamic groups were responsible for reviving the idea of jihad, which functioned as both a source of inspiration for these movements and a justification for their acts and attempts to increase their influence over the populace.
Almost all Islamic movements fall under this, regardless of whether they advocate peaceful change or employ violence to further their goals. This necessarily means that various Islamic movements have varied ideas on what constitutes jihad. But ultimately, promoting the name of Allah is the ultimate aim of any Islamic activity, at least in theory. This is true for organisations with a political objective (such as the National View) or communities with a mixed outlook (such as the Gülen movement) (Muslim Brotherhood).
It should be emphasized, nevertheless, that despite the fact that their stated objective is jihad in theory, it is impossible to say that Islamic movements have truly come to a decision on this issue. Al Qaeda, for example, is a jihadist network, but it is unclear what it advocates or seeks. This is also true of the Muslim Brotherhood; in other words, they are unable to provide a clear response to the question of what it is that they actually want to accomplish. They would make rather superficial and nebulous requests for the freedom and happiness of all Muslims, but these requests do not mention any specific objectives and are merely wishful thinking. This is not to say that they don’t have carefully thought out and stated goals—almost all do—but their objectives within the context of jihad present significant challenges.
Islamic extremism and terrorism
The majority of Islamic movements are linked to terrorism; this is, of course, due to the growing Islamophobia, which is becoming a pervasive tendency in the West. People in the West who are ignorant of Islam frequently accuse Islamic movements of supporting terrorism. Depending on how you view the bigger picture, you can decide whether or not this accusation is true. There is little doubt that some of these groups’ actions may be categorized as terrorism. However, the term “terrorism” is difficult and divisive. It is a political definition as opposed to a legal one. The majority of regimes that are dealing with violent resistance or rebellion movements have a clear-cut and comprehensive framework of law and strategy with regard to terrorism. For instance, burning a flag can be seen as a terrorist act in a nation where terrorism is a problem, while in Sweden, the same act might be seen as a form of free speech. The definition of terror is therefore highly debatable. However, it must be acknowledged that at least some of the violent acts carried out by some Islamic organisations, which appear to justify the use of violence, should be regarded as terrorist acts.
But regrettably, we see a surge in the extreme in the West that is motivated by prejudice and phobias. It is difficult to imagine how a strategy that unequivocally sees jihad or Islam as a threat could adopt a non-violent position toward the activities and deeds of Islamic movements. Making sure that they do not rely on such categorical attitudes with regard to Islamic groups is what needs to be done in the Western world. In other words, it would be a huge error to compare this organisation with, say, al Qaeda; it may have an Islamic purpose, but it may rely on peaceful means and techniques.
Recall that there are beneficial and helpful components to Islamic movements. It is possible to see that these movements, for the most part, have true intentions. The fact that at least some of them are opposed to violence is also clear. While requesting a Shariah rule, some of them acknowledge that doing so is not required and that using force to uphold Shariah is not acceptable. While some of them are merely rebellious, others are dedicated to charitable and social causes.
Because of this, it is not totally proper to generalize about Islamic movements or Islamist organizations because doing so would leave out some beneficial features of such activities. Given that the concept of terror is nebulous and subject to various interpretations and approaches, it would be incorrect to evaluate all organisations with a clear Islamic objective and emphasis in relation to their operations. Such a strategy would be universal by nature. Because of this, labeling a certain group as terrorist may cause significant issues. Instead, the actions of people or groups should be evaluated on their own, without reference to who they are. In other words, while a particular act may fit the definition of terrorism, it is not always the case that a particular group constitutes a terrorist movement. For instance, it may not be accurate to categorize the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, but some of its members’ or sympathizers’ actions, particularly those committed against government officials in the late 1950s, may qualify. This does not imply that the group is a terrorist organization, though.
In conclusion, pursuing an Islamist agenda does not automatically turn a particular group keen to further an Islamist discourse into a terrorist organization, regardless of how inflammatory or upsetting it may be. Authorities should exercise caution in designating an Islamic organization as a terrorist organization because doing so would offend its members and supporters who, in reality, are not prone to using violence to further their objectives or agendas.
