Template talk:Timeline of Islamist militancy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Misc Comments

I am not against having a timeline of Islamist military history, but it really should be based on history of military activities by Islamist groups as the term is understood by most people; not a cherry-picking of Islamic and Muslim history, 20th century Middle-Eastern history and Islamist activities. In fact, a lot of the terrorist activities from 1932 to about the early 80s were by groups that were not based on any religious ideology at all—some were actually left-wing/Marxist in basis!

If you think that some event in the timeline was not carried out by those who believe in some form of the ideology of jihad, then let us and know and feel free to edit them out of the timeline.
Do you think it would be practical to list every action that was ever carried out by someone who believed in some form of the ideology of Jihad? Or even just the ones that we know about or have historical significance of any type? I was heading towards helping make this a timeline of Islamist (please read that article to know what ideolgoy I am specifically talking about) militancy.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 12:22, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
A list of self-described jihads would make about as much sense as (and be about as long as) a list of self-described just wars. A timeline of Islamist militancy, on the other hand, would actually be useful - though the article is currently far from being that. - Mustafaa 23:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other comments:

And terrorist attacks by individuals and small groups are just that; terrorist attacks, not military actions.

"And terrorist attacks by individuals and small groups are just that; terrorist attacks, not military actions." <--- terrorism actually is a military tactic; in particualar, it is a tactic usually used in asymmetric warfare. also, none of the terrorist incidents in the timeline were carried out by individuals, but rather by groups. terrorists incidents are almost always part of a larger military conflict, usually an asymmetric war. Military conflicts, involving people who believed in some form of the jihad ideology, are significant to the military history of Muslims and thus entirely relevant to the history of jihad. of course, Ta bu shi da yu says that terrorism is a "meaningless" word and that there's no such thing as terrorists attack, so he would object to your use of the phrase "terrorist attacks." But that's just "Ta bu shi da yu" ridiculous POV.
ahem. Ta bu shi da yu never said anything of the sort. I said that "terrorism" is a POV word. I never said it was meaningless, and I don't appreciate anonymous users misquoting me. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:59, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Now you are confusing me. Do you want to make this a timeline of all "Islamic" military activity over 1500 years or so? Or all military activity by Islamists (see that article for a definition)? Or of all activity every carried out in the name of Jihad? While those three are overlapping, I don't think you can seriously think that they are all one and the same? Do you?
And now, I personally don't think that terrorism is a meaningless term. It had a real meaning—the one you alluded to— and was used by a lot of people without apology. Nelson Mandela, for one, still makes no apologies for using the tactic. However, one has to admit that the way the term is bandied about by various governments today is pretty meaningless—unless you accept "everyone we want to fight" as a meaningful translation.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 12:32, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

The gaps from 732 to 1000 and then 1000 to 1932 alone should disqualify this from being a real "timeline" of anything.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:23, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

then fill in those gaps. if there are gaps in a timeline, you fill them in, you don't set the timline on fire or try to completely edit it out of the document that it's contained in --
You might have noticed that I did not attempt to edit the timeline at all. I want to first get some input and agreement on the talk page. Not sure what you mean by "set the timeline on fire", though.
I wasn't the one that took it out of the article to bring it here. YOu don't think that was a good idea? I wasn't part of that discussion. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 12:22, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
"I wasn't the one that took it out of the article to bring it here." <--- i wasn't speaking specifically to you. it was directed to those who did take it out of the article; no doubt the whitewashing islamist squad that set the timeline on fire when they saw it read the above statement. if it's input you're looking for before you try editing the timeline, then here's my input: unless you selectively and manipulatively present the facts about Islamic history in way that helps the islamist apologists run public relations campaign on wikipedia, you will invariably be persecuted on wikipedia and any knowledge you contribute will be destroyed. when the untutored Muslims invaded India in the 12th century, darkness and night fell upon india's great centers of learning. When the Muslims encountered these universities, they percieved them as bastions of idolatry, and so they burnt these ancient centers of learning to the ground. They set fire to huge libraries of Vedic scriptures, destroying as much knowledge as they could. They even went so far as to kill anyone in sight at these unversities, because the Muslim hoards mistook the scholars as hated "brahmins." What could have motivated these Muslim invaders to commit acts of such horrific barbarity? It was the same thing that motivated the Taliban to destroy ancient mountain-sized budhist statues, it was the same thing that motivates the wikipedia Islamists to senselessly destroy knowledge and harass anyone whose contributions are not in line with the Islamist PR camapaign on wikipedia. Such people only understand force, and force is on their side on wikipedia because they are large in number, totally uncomprimsing, and extremely persistent and abusive (e.g. endless and constant reversions). The information contained in this timeline is simply too damaging. In summary, my input for you is that you must rigerously whitewash this timeline if you want it to remotely acceptable by the islamist cabal of wikipedia. Nothing is more damaging for their PR Islamist campaign than the dark, centuries-old history of "Islamism." -- anon
And please sign what you write, so we can have a conversation. Is this User:Pename I am talking to or an anonymous user.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 12:22, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
I believe it is Pename, hiding behind an anonymous IP address. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please note, though I initially created this template, I did not start it. It came from Jihad and was taking up lots of space. I moved it to a template. Whether it is NPOV or not, I cannot say. People would need to ask Pename this, as he's the original author. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have. Though the timeline—if it really discusses what the title promises, or maybe even is moved to Timeline of Islamist militancy—would be a very useful reference to have access to, for all sorts of people.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:30, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
OK - sounds like a good idea to me :) Done. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
UNDO THIS CHANGE. YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE TITLE OF THIS TEMPLATE TO SOMETHING THAT COMPLETELY DISTORTS ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE AND ITS CONTENT. I created this timeline, and I'm the only one seriously working on it (the only contribution so far as been by Mustafa, whose only contribution was to quietly delete everything in the timeline before 1978 - and he used this disasterous change of title as his excuse!) Since I created the timeline, and I am the only one seriously working on it, I am more aware of its final purpose than you or IFaqeer. See the section below for further disucssion on the "Timeline of Islamist militancy" title.
TA BU SHI DA YU: I demand that you move it back to its original namespace. If you fail to comply or respond in a timely manner, this matter will definately be escelated to arbcom. Enough is enough. If you continue in this manner (attempting to destroy, distort and sabatoge everything I work on at wikipedia) then i assure you that your days as a wikipedia moderator will be numbered. -- guess who
Log in and do it yourself. I'd like to see you take me to arbcom as an anonymous user, by the way. It would certainly be interesting to see what happens. If you are Pename, I think I'd just point out the RFC I filed on you. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See also Talk:Jihad#My recent edit and Talk:Jihad#Great New Article Feature: TIMELINE!. This timeline is useless as it currently stands, though in an improved form it might become an actual "Timeline of Islamist militancy" or the like. - Mustafaa 15:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa, good edit. I will have to look into this a wee more.

BTW, do folks think we should add some of the timeline of the ideology of "Islamism" here? You know, Hasan Al-Banna, Syed Koteb, Maududi, etc.?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:09, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a timeline of military history. It is NOT a timeline of intellectual movements within the ideology of Islamism. Events such as "Maulana Maududi publishes a book" are NOT military events. As a rule of thumb, if the event did not directly involve people getting killed, then it DOES NOT belong in THIS timeline. -- original author of this timeline
Note to all: the original author of this timeline was Pename. Thanks for confirming this for us mate. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's a good idea, IFaqeer. Such a timeline would be very useful for the Islamism article. - Mustafaa 12:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What is Islamist Militancy?

Islamism is, quite simply, political Islam in all its forms. Any sort of militancy is highly political. Thus Muhammad's military activities are as "Islamist" as Osama bin Laden's military activities, for they are both political activities motivated by the Islamic religion. This template is aimed at being a comprehensive timeline of Islamist military history. This includes every major Islamist militant activity from Muhammad's time up to and including the present.

Mustafa is attempting to delete any entries in the timeline prior in 1978. Apparently this particular Muslim apologist believes that "Islamist militancy" did not exist prior to the Afghan Jihad. This opinion is incorrect - as stated before, the aim of this template is to compose a timeline that covers all major events in the 1,400 years of Muslim military history, and this includes events such as the numerous imperial conquests that occured prior to 1978.

Do you even know the meaning of the term "Islamism"? Apparently not. I suggest you look it up sometime. - Mustafaa 12:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see what the problem is. You are defining Islamism and Islamist much more broadly than the other folks on this list or even most academicians do today. Which is why people like me have for years struggled to not use that word or "Islamic fundamentalism" to mean what most people use them to mean.

The problem as we have it today, as I see it, is that you want to cover every militant/militaristic action by any Muslim—or anyone calling themselves a Muslim. Okay, that is a valid thing to do if you want to do it. But the problem the rest of us are having is that the phrase "Islamist Militancy" then becomes misleading. Would you care to suggest a different title?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:02, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of Islamist militancy?

THIS timeline was NOT intended to be a "Timeline of Islamist militancy." It is a Timeline of Islamist Military History. A timeline of Islamist militancy would include all sorts of non-military events, such as the publishing of influential Islamist books. That is clearly NOT the purpose of this timeline - this is simply a timeline of military conflicts and attacks that ACTUALLY occured. The title "Timeline of Islamist militancy" MUST be changed because it is entirely inaccurate. If "Ta bu shi da yu" and his Islamist friends want to start a timeline of Islamist militancy, then let them do so ELSEWHERE.

Hey. If you logged in then you could move the page yourself! But you won't, so I guess we're stuck with this now. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mustafaa starts a revert war

Yet again, a member of the wikipedia Islamc apologicts squad has started a revert war. There is no logical argumentation or justification on his part. Just a couple one liners and a head-first plunge into revert war. This time he is carrying out a revert war on this timeline, which I started and intended for use in the Jihad page. It was removed from the Jihad page by Mustafaa and the rest of the wikipedia Islamc apologicts squad - they succeeded in removing it, again not my any intellectual feat, but through a brute revert war which lead to the page being locked. The great irony is that this template is not even being used in any wikipedia article. Yet Mustafaa is still intent on attempting to destroy any and all of my contributions - his current revert war is aimed at deleting anything in the timeline prior to 1978 (he's deleted events spanning 1,400 years from the timeline). Mustafaa: keep it up. Sooner or later, this will all go to arbcom. --Pename

Well, the title is misleading. Let's just nip this in the bud, shall we? Mustafaa did not make the first revert. This was done by an anonymous user (I think it was yourself, Pename) User:24.227.42.126 [1], and the edit summary is "undoing vanadalism by Mustafa. Mustafa: for EVERY SINGLE event in the timeline that you want to whitewash (er i mean delete) provide an explanation, and DO NOT DELETE UNTIL CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED". Let's analyse that comment: firstly, assume good faith. Do not immediately accuse another editor of vandalism. Secondly, do not imply that he is deliberately "whitewashing" the story. I do agree that Mustafaa should explain the deletes however, and I'm sure he will do this. (I've left a note on his talk page, and I feel certain that he will respond here!). HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ta (may I call you Ta?), please see my post under [[#What is Islamist Militancy?] (dated 22:02, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)]]. The issue, I guess, is that we are using different definitions of "Islamism".—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:11, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Sure :-) I definitely see the problem. I've reverted the removal of changes. I'm also going to move the other page I created to "Timeline of Islamic military history". - Ta bu shi da yu 22:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Other page?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:00, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
See Template:Timeline of Islamic military history. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The issue then is that it is about military history—and most of the content there wold be irrelevant.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:13, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
I know :) Amazing how changing one word in the title can fix the whole issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pename: Nothing prior to 1978 on that timeline has anything to do with the fairly recent ideology called Islamism - to which, I remind you, this page's title now refers - and most of the PLO/Black September/Abu Nidal attacks don't even have any ideological connection to Islam. You probably know the latter as well as I do, and the former you would know if you took the trouble to look up the term Islamism (hint: its best-known founder was Sayyid Qutb.) There's the justification for the deletions... On the other hand, I don't notice any attempt at "justification" for even one event on the timeline. Why not apply the opposite approach: delete the whole thing until you personally justify each and every one of your claims to the satisfaction of everyone concerned? Or, alternatively, I could simply abandon this page in its current state - and thus guarantee that, no matter what page you put it on, any remotely NPOV editor (and Wikipedia is full of those) will remove it. Frankly, you should be grateful to me for taking the trouble to get a template that's about a step away from VfD as it stands into a state where it might actually be worth putting into an article. - Mustafaa 19:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. From Islamism: "Islamist movements developed during the twentieth century in reaction to several forces." I've put back Mustafaa's changes. Now it's anon/Pename's turn to justify why they should be put back. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Mustafaa: "look up the term Islamism (hint: its best-known founder was Sayyid Qutb.)" Ta buwatever: "I agree. From Islamism: "Islamist movements developed during the twentieth century in reaction to several forces." <--- quite a system the wikiedia islamist apologia squad has going here. they take over and whitewash one Islam related article, and then when they go to whitewash the next article and you need to source their "facts," they simply point to the previous wikipedia articles that they already managed to whitewash using every dirty trick in the book. ANd then we end up with people like Ta bu shi da yu, who admittedly dont know anything Islam, and are completely fooled into believing that wikipedia is actually legitimate source of information about all things islam. If one wikipedia article claims that "Islamism" (the political aspect of the basic Islamic ideology) only began in the 20th century (a laughable claim in itself), then it must be so, and all other wikipedia articles must be changed accordingly. And lo and behold it's the same small group of highly dedicated Muslim users effectively controlling all wikipedia content related to Islam and spewing the blackest propoganda and apologia, like no tommorow. This is outright scandelous.
I shall indeed look up the word "Islamism" - not for me (I already know what it means) but for you two, who do not know what it means. But I will NOT go to a Wikipedia article heavily edited by Mustafaa, OneGuy and Alberuni (the bulwark of the wikipedia Islamic aplogia squad), to find out what the true meaning of English an word is. The "Islamism" article is totally disputed and wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, mostly because it has been tainted by the wikipedia Islamic apologia squad. Instead looking up English words by reading articles written by Alberuni, OneGuy, Mustafa, Mirvi, etc., etc., I will do what any educated person would do in such a situation: consult the Oxford English Dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary is a comprehensive multi-volume dictionary published by the Oxford University Press and is generally regarded as the definitive dictionary of Modern English. So looking up Islamism, as Mustafaa suggested (but using a legitimate source instead of the source he provided), a completely different picture emrges of what the English word "Islamism" actually means:
Islamism / 'zlmz()m/, / 's-/
→ n.
Islamic militancy or fundamentalism.
- DERIVATIVES Islamist ( also Islamicist ) n. & adj.
SOURCE: "Islamism n." The Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004 <http://www.oxfordreference.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t23.e29279>


Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation. Became the favored state policy during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 1876–1909) and was adopted and promoted by members of the ruling bureaucratic and intellectual elites of the empire. With the rise of colonialism, became a defensive ideology, directed against European political, military, economic, and missionary penetration. Posed the sultan as a universal caliph to whom Muslims everywhere owed allegiance and obedience. Sought to offset military and economic weakness in the Muslim world by favoring central government over the periphery and Muslims over non-Muslims in education, office, and economic opportunities. Ultimately failed and collapsed after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Resurrected during the resurgence of Islam after World War II. Expressed via organizations such as the Muslim World League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which seek to coordinate Islamic solidarity through political and economic cooperation internationally. Has also served as an important political tool in recruiting all-Muslim support against foreign aggressions.
SOURCE: "Islamism" Oxford Dictionary of Islam. John L. Esposito, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004 <http://www.oxfordreference.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t125.e1819>


Now who is more authorative source for the defintions and meanings of Enlgish words related to Islam: Mustafaa & Ta buwatever (who admits he knows "next to nothing about Islam") or the Oxford Dictionary of Islam, published by Oxford University? The answer is obvious.
Ta bu shi da yu: You have admitted that you "know next to nothing about Islam." Why, then, do you feel qualified to assess the validity of Mustafaa's claims and help him carry out his revert war? What do you know about Islam? According to your own words, you know next to nothing. So why are you deciding, for millions of wikipedia readers, what is Islamism, what it is not, what "Islamist militancy" is, and what it is is not? Do you feel qualified because simply you read the wikipedia article on Islamism? Do you realize that wikipedia is not conicdered a legitimate source of information in academia? Do you even have access to a university library, where you can carry out research on this subject, by (for example) looking up terms in the Oxford Dictionary of Islam? You will not convince anyone that even though you admitedly "know next to nothing about Islam," you are well qualified to directly contradict the Oxford Dictionary of Islam. You and your friend Mustafaa have been proven blatently wrong. note, Furthermore, Ta bu shi da yu, you claimed that Islamism began in the 20th century, yet you deleted everything from 1900 to 1978. If you had the least bit of concern for the truth, you would have at least not deleted the events from 1900 to 1978. Keep it up, Ta bu shi da yu. This is all going to arbcom sooner or later.
Given the above reasons, I am changing the timeline back to its original state. I agree that not every event listed there should be there - particularly, there are a few acts of terrorism carried out by secular palestinian groups that do not belong there. However, every single event that is to be deleted must be examined individually - anyone who wants to delete an event from the timeline, must provide a detailed explaination, complete with credable external sources. It has been clearly and undeniably proven that Islamism did not begin in 1978, but rather that it "has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam." Therefore, Mustafaa and Ta bu shi da yu's entire argument for their wholesale deletion has been refuted - Islamism did not begin in the 20th century. This excuse can no longer be used to delete everything in the timeline prior to 1978. -- Pename
Pename, I think you are arguing this on the wrong article. Try Islamism. I'm going to request this page be locked until it can be sorted out. Oh, incidently, I can read, and I got my material from the Islamism article. Cheers. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Pename, I think you are arguing this on the wrong article. Try Islamism." <--- excuse me? YOU are the one who used your incorrect defintion of "Islamism" as an excuse to delete 1,400 years of this timeline which only spans about 1,430 years in total. And then when I correct your defintion, in order to explain why I am reverting your wholesale deltion, you tell me that I am arguing on the wrong article? Why should I "Try Islamism?" I am not interested in editing that article. Wikipedia is not the only source of information in the world about what "Islamism" means. Wikipedia is not a legitimate source, especially when the people citing another wikipedia article as a source also happened to be heavily involved in the editing of this other wikipedia article. As such, as the "Islamism" wikipedia article is entirely irrelevant to this discussion and this article. -- Pename
Perhaps you should try modifying the Islamism article? This is what we are basing our definition on. It would seem to be incongruous to have a timeline of Islamism that contradicts the main Islamism article! Talk to me when you correct that article. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Perhaps you should try modifying the Islamism article? This is what we are basing our definition on. " <--- I am not interested in editing articles where the gang consisting of Mustafaa, OneGuy, Alberuni and Mirvi actively contribute. Their bullying tactics, endless revert wars, etc. are too much of a waste of time for me to bother spending effort on. Just because these individuals have inserted certain disinformation, propoganda and apologia into numerous wikipedia articles does not mean that I am obliged to correct every one of these articles, and take all the abuse that comes with dealing with these extremists on wikipedia, just because I want to cite a credable source such as the OED to support my claims. I repeat: Wikipedia is not a credable source, especially when the article in question is heavily editing by the people citing it as a source, and it is even less credable when it directly contrdicts the definitive dictionary of the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary. Ta bu shi da yu, I advise you that if you continue to engage in this manner, you will only serve to further discredit yourself in front of the arbitration committee that will eventually judge your behaviour. -- Pename
Then don't come crying to us saying that we have incorrect information! Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Then don't come crying to us saying that we have incorrect information! Sheesh." <--- Excuse me? I came crying to you? You and Mustafaa vandalized this timeline, and you used a false justification for deleting all events in the timeline from its start (AD 630) to AD 1978. The false justification you two used was a flawed defintion of the word "Islamism." As a matter of principal I explained in detail, in this discussion page, why your justification was false, before I undid your deletion of my work. If you don't want to hear about why your defintion of Islamism is false, then you are always welcome to stop vandalizing this template on the basis of false information. -- Pename
And yet, you don't have the courage of your convictions to edit the Islamism article. I should treat you seriously because...? Ta bu shi da yu 10:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On second thoughts. This might be better on WP:RFC. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

Pename has a point. I did revert and lose a few entries that weren't justified. However, based on the Islamism article I'm removing everything before the 20th century. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source. If you cited wikipedia as a source in a university research paper, it would not be accepted. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, on the other hand, IS a defintive source of information on English terminology pertaining to Islam, e.g. "Islamism." Your changes are completely unjusifited. Until you have refuted the facts and arguments presented in the above section, you cannot delete 1,300 years of history from this timeline. I am reverting your changes. The timeline should stay in its original state, and this matter should be handled through RFCs and through the informed comments of those who actually know what they're talking about, not those who admit that they "know next to nothing about Islam," have shown themselves to have an extreme bias, and are directly contradicting authorative sources such as the Oxford English Dictionary. You are not qualified to make any changes to this template - you have nothing to do with it. You are grossly uninformed about Islam, as you admit yourself that you "know next to anything about Islam." You have voluntarily discredited yourself. Now file an RFC on this article and leave this matter to those who are better qualified than you are. -- Pename
I am qualified to remove things from the template. Anyone is. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. Even (gasp!) anonymous users can do this! Oh, incidently, I find it highly amusing that you talk about RFCs. You haven't filed one. I have, however. I've also made a note on the talk page of Islamism asking for comment. I also haven't seen you try to fix the supposedly incorrect article on Islamism! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"I am qualified to remove things from the template." <--- and I am qualified to correct your incorrect contributions to a subject on which you admitedly "know next to nothing."
"Oh, incidently, I find it highly amusing that you talk about RFCs. You haven't filed one. I have, however." <--- I'm glad to hear. Have you filed an RFC on the Jihad yet?
Nope. Why don't you? You are perfectly capable of doing this! You don't have to be an admin to do this. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"I also haven't seen you try to fix the supposedly incorrect article on Islamism! " <--- please read my comments before responding to them. I already explained twice why I am not editing the incorrect information contained in the Islamism article. -- Pename
Not good enough. Fix the Islamism article first, then come back to this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Fix the Islamism article first, then come back to this article" <--- Excuse me? I thought I made it clear that I do not wish to edit any articles, I only wish to be left in peace to work on my timeline, i.e. this template which is not used in any wikipedia articles anyway, so should be of no concern to anyone except me. Are you saying that according to Wikipedia policy I am obliged to correct mistakes on all wikipedia articles before I can work on my timeline? Maybe you made this policy up yourself? I hope you realize that it's not your place to be making wikipedia policies.
IN any case, an arbitration comittee can decide whether or not I must edit the Islamism article (though I do not want to and never have edited said article before) before I can work on my timeline. This will be decided through RFC, it will not be decided by you. -- Pename
Uh, I guess you don't understand the function of RFC then. It doesn't decide anything. It merely asks for comment from various other users, and admins keep an eye on it too. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"It doesn't decide anything. It merely asks for comment from various other users, and admins keep an eye on it too." <--- It's a wonder that you became a sysop, Ta bu shi da yu. The purpose of the RFC is to arrive at decisions regarding disputes through consultation. If RFCs did not exist, then sysops like you could go around barking crazy orders like "Fix the Islamism article first, then come back to this article," and people would actually have to comply instead of referring the matter to RFC. -- Pename


Sigh.

From WP:RFC:

When to use RFC

  • RFC is appropriate when you want other wiki-ists to visit the page, to allow a consensus or a better quality of decision, to help resolve a dispute or break a deadlock.
  • If you simply want peer review of an article, then list it at Wikipedia:Peer review.
  • If the dispute involves allegations that a user has engaged in serious violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, create a subpage for the dispute. Use the subpage to elaborate on the allegations.


How to use RFC

  • To request other users to comment on an issue, add a link to the Talk page for the article, a brief neutral statement of the issue, and the date.
  • Don't sign it, don't list the details, and don't submit arguments or assign blame.
  • On the Talk page of the article, it can help to summarize the dispute.

General hints for dispute resolution

  • Whatever the nature of the dispute, the first resort should always be to discuss the problem with the other user. Try to resolve the dispute on your own first.
  • For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, please wait until at least two people have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem.
  • Don't forget to follow Wikiquette. Wikiquette is more important in resolving a dispute, not less.

From WP:DR:

Discuss with third parties

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Protection policy

Give it a break already Pename! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for filling discussion page with pointless cut & paste spam, Ta bu shi da yu. -- Pename
Pointless? The only thing that is pointless is your personal attacks, and your total misunderstanding of the RFC process! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some help on Template:Timeline of Islamist militancy!

Copied from Talk:Islamism

According to Pename, he checked the Oxford English Dictionary from Oxford University Press and it says that Islamism is as follows:

Islamism / 'zlmz()m/, / 's-/ → n. Islamic militancy or fundamentalism. - DERIVATIVES Islamist ( also Islamicist ) n. & adj.

SOURCE: "Islamism n." The Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004 <http://www.oxfordreference.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t23.e29279>;

He also found the following:

Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation. Became the favored state policy during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 1876–1909) and was adopted and promoted by members of the ruling bureaucratic and intellectual elites of the empire. With the rise of colonialism, became a defensive ideology, directed against European political, military, economic, and missionary penetration. Posed the sultan as a universal caliph to whom Muslims everywhere owed allegiance and obedience. Sought to offset military and economic weakness in the Muslim world by favoring central government over the periphery and Muslims over non-Muslims in education, office, and economic opportunities. Ultimately failed and collapsed after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Resurrected during the resurgence of Islam after World War II. Expressed via organizations such as the Muslim World League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which seek to coordinate Islamic solidarity through political and economic cooperation internationally. Has also served as an important political tool in recruiting all-Muslim support against foreign aggressions.

SOURCE: "Islamism" Oxford Dictionary of Islam. John L. Esposito, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004 <http://www.oxfordreference.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t125.e1819>;

Based on this information, it would appear that this article has missing information. Would someone care to comment? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would help if he had used a resource that one of us could get to. And the reference he is quoting is not a dictionary, but a reference library that is quoting one very specific writer who has his own POV. Describing something that lasted almost 1400 years as having "failed" stands out, for example.
The dictionaries I have access to give the following:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/I0247900.html:
SYLLABICATION: Is·lam·ism
PRONUNCIATION: s-lämzm, z-, sl-, z-
NOUN: 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.
'OTHER FORMS: Is·lamist —ADJECTIVE & NOUN
or:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Islamist&x=0&y=0
Main Entry: Is·lam·ism'
Pronunciation: is-'lä-"mi-z&m, iz-, -'la-; 'iz-l&-'
Function: noun'
the faith, doctrine, or cause of Islam'
- Is·lam·ist /-mist/ noun'
A "revivalist" movement can hardly have existed since the beginning of a religion's history.
Furthermore, if you go to any encyclopedia, you get different, or maybe more specific results. For example, a search of the sort:
http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Islamist&submit=Find&source=MWBOX
gives links to a very specific type and family of organization, the Islamic Salvation Front, an Algerian Islamist political party, the Armed Islamic Group, an Algerian militant group affiliated with the same, Egyptian Islamists and so on.
Then just google "Islamist" and see what pops up outside of Wikipedia:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Islamist
Dictionaries often only provide the literal meaning of a word, usually the basic linguistic meaning. And those meanings evovle with time. And this evolution happens in the context of academic discussions and common use. For example, the definition of "fundamentalist" in one of the same dictionaries is:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/F0362700.html
fundamentalism
SYLLABICATION: fun·da·men·tal·ism
PRONUNCIATION: fnd-mntl-zm
NOUN: 1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. 2a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture. b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
OTHER FORMS: funda·mental·ist —ADJECTIVE & NOUN
funda·mental·istic —ADJECTIVE
while another gives
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fundamentalist&x=0&y=0
Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
- fun·da·men·tal·ist /-t&l-ist/ noun
- fundamentalist or fun·da·men·tal·is·tic /-"men-t&l-'is-tik/ adjective
The second meaning is mainly of late 20th century usage. If one had used the word "Fundamentalist" in the early 20th century, it would have meant a very specific type of Christian. Now it can mean people from several religions.
The point? The point is that a literalist dictionary meaning belongs in the dictionary. And they evolve. Dictionaries are updated. In an encyclopedia, we capture what it means in the wider world and present information that helps people understadn their world. And hopefully as complete a picture as we collectively can. Google "Islamist" and see what comes up. I would agree and support something in the beginning that said something like "Islamist is sometimes taken in a literalist sense to mean any political movement that takes Islam as it's guiding principle. However, it usually refers to..." and then what is there now.
My tuppence 'orth.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:47, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
(1) http://www.bartleby.com? What is bartleby.com? Bartleby.com is a company started in 1993 that sells books on the Internet. It certain is not as credable as the Oxford English Dictionary, especially when it's the Oxford Dictionary of Islam from the Oxford Online Reference, at Oxford University - the oldest university in the English speaking world, as opposed to a corporation founded in 1993 "as a personal research experiment."[2] The Oxford English Dictionary is the definitive dictionary of academic discourse. (2) Words need not have only one widely accepted meaning. They can have multiple accepted meanings. It could well be that bartleby.com's defintion is also amongst the accepted defintions of "Islamism." After all, the word "Islamism" itself was coined in recent times, and such words tend to be used to mean mutliple different things. But the simple fact is that the defintion of Islamism as "a religious concept that existed since the early days of Islam" is the THE definitive defintion in English language academic studies in Islam, because of the exceptional status of the OED. Many people are not educated enough to even be aware of the OED, let alone be aware of its level of credability is within English language academia. Nevertheless it should be clear, to any person who is worthy of contributing to an encylopedia, that when a highly prominnent and up-to-date dictionary published by Oxford University says that "Islamism as a religious concept existed since the early days of Islam," then it is acceptable at the highest levels of academic research to refer to Islamism as something that has existed since the early days of Islamism. To deny this would be to deny the credability of the Oxford English Dictionary, which would be a profoundly ignorant thing for you or for anyone else to do. -- Pename
" Google "Islamist" and see what comes up." <--- Um. Or I could read books. -- Pename
"fun·da·men·tal·ism" <--- you seem to be confused. we are not debating the meaning of the word fundamentalist. please do not start posting dictionary defintions for every word you feel like posting a definition about. the only word being debated here is "islamism" and so in the interest of keeping the discussion firmly on topic, please refrain from posting dictionar definitions of words other than "Islamism" in this discussion section. Most people are already aware of what "fundamentalism" means and do not need you to define it for them, and this is not a word whose meaning is being twisted in order to justify deleting all history in the timeline prior to the completely arbitrary and ludicrous date of AD 1900 (suggested by Ta buwhatever ... Mustafaa supports deleting all Muslim militant history prior to 1978, when the Afghan Jihad began. Not coincidentaly, Mustafaa the extremist Islamist chose to begin the timeline with a modern war against a Western power in which the the Islamists believed they had been victorious). -- Pename
All right then. What about Daniel Pipes, a non-Islamic scholar and hardly an apologist. He says the following [3] :
Though neutral on Islam, I take a strong stand on Islamism, which I see as very different. Islam is the religion of the Qur'an and the Sunna; Islamism is the political path of Hasan al-Banna, Abu'l-A`la al-Mawdudi, and Ayatollah Khomeini. The former is (in the Muslim view) eternal or (in the non-Muslim view) fourteen centuries old; the latter is a twentieth-century phenomenon. The one is a faith, the other an ideology. Whereas the closest parallels to Islam are Judaism and Christianity, those closest to Islamism are other radical utopian "isms," namely fascism and Marxism-Leninism.
What do you say to this? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(1) You are now obstinantly denying the credablity of the Oxford English Dictionary, and this is a profoundly ignorant denial as explained previously. (2) Daniel Pipes is not a "scholar," or as we call it in the West here in the 21st century, a professional academic. Far from being an academic, Pipes is a political commentator who works as a policy advisor for the Office of George W. Bush - he was installed by Bush shortly after the Bush-Gore election. What Daniel Pipes, an employee of George W. Bush, says about Islam can hardly be trusted. Certainly, no serious researcher would try to refute the OED, let alone refute it by quoting Daniel Pipes of all people. -- Pename
So you're saying that the OED is 100% correct in all instances and every fact has been checked and can never be wrong? Are you saying that new research into areas which might change the information could be considered? Are you saying that the POV of one researcher is infallible? And who is the body that has given such absolute authority to the OED?!?! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
By claiming that since the OED was written by humans it must therefore be "POV," you are effectively saying that ALL sources are unreliable and "POV." If you can't believe the OED, they why the hell should we believe far less credable sources such as the 10 year old Internet company bartleby.com, or Bush adminstration Middle Eastn policy advisors, such as Daniel Pipes? THis is quite ridiculous. -- Pename
Yeah. That's what I said. Seriously, I give up with you. I'm not debating with you any more, at least not when you put words into my mouth. I think this is the second time I've said this, so I'll make it my last. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That is exactly what you said, as anyone can see. This is a a pretty cheap way to bail out when you've completely lost an argument. But as long as you don't go around senselessly destroying my contributions based on your totally uninformed point-of-view, you won't have to defend your actions against my arguments. -- Pename
"It would help if he had used a resource that one of us could get to." <--- I was not aware that Wikipedia requires every source to be instantly available online for free to everyone for it to be a verifiable and credable source. I am referencing books that are available online to those pay a hefty fee to Oxford in order to accesss the resource - in my case, my universtiy pays for this access. If you do not have online access to it, then you can always walk over the a library and find the book yourself, if you wish to verify the source.
"And the reference he is quoting is not a dictionary, but a reference library that is quoting one very specific writer who has his own POV." <--- (1) apparently this person is not aware of what the Oxford Online Resource is. I was not "quoting a referance library" (whatever that means), I really was quoting dictionaries. IN particular, I was quoting two sources: (a) The Concise Oxford English Dictionary and (b) The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, both of which form part of the OED. (2) by claiming that since the Oxford English dictionary was written by humans it must therefore be "POV," this person is effectively saying that ALL sources are unreliable and "POV." If he can't believe the OED, they why the hell should we believe far less credable sources such as the 10 year old Internet company bartleby.com, or Bush adminstration Middle Eastn policy advisors, such as Daniel Pipes? THis is quite ridiculous. -- Pename
Pename, let's see what you quoted: "Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation." OK, let's look at this a bit more carefully. Firstly, the concept is "sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims". Next sentence is "Has existed as a religious concept since the days of Islam." OK. Now, does that mean that "sociopolitical solidarity" has existed as a religious concept since the days of Muslims? it would seem so. After all, as I've stated below Islamism comes from the French word islamisme, which was itself coined by Voltaire, who existed in the 18th century. The context of what is written would also bear this out because the next sentence is "Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation." So it emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s? Well, look at that. It appears that you've misread your own source. How delightful. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"POV ... Describing something that lasted almost 1400 years as having "failed" stands out, for example." <--- the OED mentions, in relation to Islamism, that it "ultimately failed and collapsed after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I." This does not prove that the OED "is POV." This is merely the historical reality of Islamism. The Islamist political system is called the Caliphate. The Caliphates lasted 1400 years and then ultimately failed after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman [Islamist] Empire after World War I. The Caliphate was finally abolosihed in 1928 by Kemel Ataturk, the founder of the modern secular nation-state of Turkey. Ever since, there has no be Caliphate, in violation of Islamic law, as explanied in the Wikipedi article on Caliphate. Stating known historical facts is not the same as expressing a particular POV. Perhaps you were simply unaware of the historical facts, and this led you to believe that the Oxford English Dictionary was lying about the history of Islamism, or (as you put it) was "POV." -- Pename

I am amused to find Pename, of all people, citing John Esposito. Had I cited Esposito - regularly accused of being an "apologist for militant Islam" by people like Pename - he would no doubt be wildly throwing accusations of POV bias; but since for once Esposito's and Pename's worldviews happen to coincide on this particular point, he has instead decided that even Daniel Pipes is insufficiently Islamophobic to be trusted to give a correct answer. The two are rather interesting counterparts to one another, actually; but neither can seriously be regarded as the last word on the subject. - Mustafaa 15:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OH OK. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam cannot be regarded as the last word on what a strictly English word means, but we should concider Mustafaa's extremist personal opinion to be the last word. -- Pename
Pename, the Oxford Dictionary did not write itself! It was written by an author, so perhaps you would like to address the issue about the source of the information you have given us? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Pename, the Oxford Dictionary did not write itself! It was written by an author, so perhaps you would like to address the issue about the source of the information you have given us? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)" <--- Essentially what you are telling us is that the Oxford English Dictionary was written by humans, it must therefore "be POV." According to the Wikipedia article, the OED is "Generally regarded as the definitive dictionary of Modern English." "Ta bu shi da," perhaps you would like to edit the entry on Oxford English Dictionary and correct this "obvious mistake" (sic). The fact of the matter is, as has been repeatedly stressed and remains unrefuted, that the Oxford English Dictionary IS the definitive dictionary of Modern English in peer reviewed research conduceted in the English language. By denying the credability of the OED, "Ta bu shi da" is implicitly implying that ALL sources written by humans are unreliable and "POV." If you can't believe the OED, they why the hell should we believe far less credable sources such as the 10 year old Internet company bartleby.com, or Bush adminstration Middle East policy advisors, such as Daniel Pipes? "Ta bu shi da yu" is the only who cited Daniel Pipes' defintion of "Islamism." Daniel Pipes is concidered to be an "Islamophobe," by all Islamic apologists (as Mustafaa confirmed) and Pipes, being a Middle East policy advisor for George W. Bush, he is not trusted by many critics of Islamism either and he is certainly not trusted by "Isamophobes" (George W. Bush once stated that "Islam is a relgion of peace."). So "Ta bu shi da yu" claims that the Oxford English Dictionary (which is generalled regarded as THE definitive dictionary of modern English) is not reliable (because, he says, it did not write itself), and at the same time he cites quotes from Daniel Pipes (of all people) in order to try to disprove the OED. THis is outright scandelous. Ta bu shi da yu, it's not me, but you who needs to address the issues about the sources of information you have cited on this discussion page. -- Pename
Oh what a scandal! I asked for discussion about the author of the piece that you quoted! What a terrible thing to have asked! I mean, what a scandal to impinge upon the wonderful, amazing and fantastic John L. Esposito who can make absolutely no mistakes and who has absolutely no POV! Heavens to Madeline whatever shall we do? Ta bu shi da yu not only questioned where he gets this definition from, but had the temerity to (gasp!) ask you what your opinion of Daniel Pipes definition might be. I must be an Islamic apologist! And what a terrible thing for Ta bu shi da yu to do to have queried one item the entire great volume! He must be saying that the entire dictionary is wrong. We should take away his administrator privileges! We should draw and quarter him! We should ban him from ever editing or discussing any story ever again! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It appears that there is an old-fashioned alternative English usage of "Islamism" - though not "Islamist" - as a synonym of "Islam", imitating the French word "Islamisme". However, it is simply no longer used that way, with only rare exceptions. In any case, the best way to settle the question of what this word's modern academic usage is is to look at what is being published; and, looking at Amazon, it is very clear that the Bartleby definition - and, indeed, the Wikipedia definition - is much more descriptively accurate.

However, if we're going to start being pedantic, the word in the title of this page is actually Islamist, a word which, as far as I can see, has come into use rather more recently, to describe precisely the phenomenon referred to in Islamism. What does your OED define that as?

And finally, for good measure, even if we were to adopt the Esposito definition of Islamism and take "Islamist" to merely mean "follower of Islamism in the Esposito sense", that would be an argument for deleting even more of the timeline. What relevance do almost any of these events have to "calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims?" - Mustafaa 18:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"It appears that there is an old-fashioned alternative English usage of "Islamism" - though not "Islamist" - as a synonym of "Islam"" <--- uh, that's absolutely not what the The Concise Oxford English Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary of Islam say. The quotations from the Oxford dictionaries that I quoted were published in 2003. The English usage of a word as defined in the 2003 publication of the Oxford English Dictionary is not "old-fashioned," it is a totally contemporary, up-to-date and "fashionable" usage. It is blatently absurd to assert that the Oxford English Dictionary are some-how outdated, as Mustafaa claims. Furthermore the OED definitions of "Islamism" (an "Islamist" obviously being an adherant of "Islamism") do not suggest that "Islamism" is synonymous with the word "Islam." On the contrary, "Islamism" is defined variously as "Islamic militancy or fundamentalism," and "Islamic concept" pertaining to "sociopolitical ideology" that has existed "since the early days of Islam," and a "modern political ideoloy ... / state policy ... adopted and promoted by members of the ruling bureaucratic and intellectual elites of the empire." Clearly the militant sociopolitical ideology in Islam is not synonymoys with Islam itself.
"What relevance do almost any of these events have to "calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims?" <--- all these groups and individual in the timeline aimed to bring all Muslim societies under the rule of the Islamic sociopolitical ideology that is sometimes referred to as "Islamism." In particular, all these groups and individuals sought to further the Islamist cause through militancy (either defensive, offensive, or both). That is why they belong in this timeline of Jihad. But it is called the Timeline of Islamist militancy because,although the people who carried out these acts thought they were engaging in Jihad, not all Muslims agree on this. -- Pename
And yet, Pename, the term Islamism comes from the French word islamisme, and was originally coined by Voltaire. I notice your OED doesn't talk about that at all. (see section below) Care to explain why not? Would you also care to explain how a European word like Islamism has always meant the same thing in Islam from the very beginning of the religion when Voltaire was a 18th century philosopher? And how he often defended Islam and so the conotation is necessarily a bad one? Also care to explain how the West has had various viewpoints on Islam in different times and periods? It didn't take me long to track this information down, incidently. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Kramer on Islamism

From Coming to Terms: Fundamentalists or Islamists?

No one who reads or writes about events in the Muslim world can avoid the question of how to label those Muslims who invoke Islam as the source of authority for all political and social action. Should they be labeled Islamic (or Muslim) fundamentalists? Or are they better described as Islamists?

The issue has been the subject of a heated debate for two decades. For a while, both general and scholarly usage in America accepted fundamentalism. Islamism emerged in the late 1980s in French academe and then crossed into English, where it eventually displaced Islamic fundamentalism in specialized contexts. More recently, the term Islamism has gained even wider currency, and since September 11, 2001, it may even have established itself as the preferred American usage. Still newer terminology may lie over the horizon.

Behind the battle over usage lies another struggle, over the nature of the phenomenon itself. In fact, the two contests, over English usage and analytical understanding, are inseparable. Nor are they free of associations left by past usages. Here follows a short history of changing usage—itself a history of changing Western perceptions of Muslim reality.

The term Islamism first appeared in French in the mid-eighteenth century. But it did not refer to the modern ideological use of Islam, which had not yet come into being. Rather, it was a synonym for the religion of the Muslims, which was then known in French as mahométisme, the religion professed and taught by the Prophet Muhammad.

This usage dated to the early seventeenth century. It reflected a new willingness, born of the Renaissance, to recognize Islam as a religious system with a founder, like Christianity. But it rested upon the erroneous presumption that Muhammad stood in relation to Islam as Christ stood in relation to Christianity.[1] Nevertheless, the usage became pervasive across Europe. In 1734, George Sale, whose English translation of the Qur'an set a new standard, wrote: "It is certainly one of the most convincing proofs that Mohammedism was no other than a human invention, that it owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword."[2] Even a century later, when attitudes to Islam had changed dramatically, it was still common to call the faith after the Prophet. In 1833, the French poet Alphonse de Lamartine demonstrated the change in European attitudes, even as he employed the old usage: "Mahométisme could effortlessly and painlessly accommodate a system based on religious and civil liberty … by nature, it is moral, forbearing, uncomplaining, charitable and tolerant."[3]

In the eighteenth century, the Western study of Islam made enormous strides, and polemical denigration no longer informed every Western pronouncement. The thinkers of the Enlightenment knew perfectly well that Muslims called their faith Islam. They searched for a way to reflect that understanding through usage and thus classify Islam as a religion appreciated in its own terms.

It was the French philosopher Voltaire who found the solution, when he coined the term islamisme. Voltaire had an abiding interest in Islam, and wrote extensively about it, comparing it to other faiths, sometimes favorably. He also understood the role of Muhammad in Islam, leading him to correct his readers: "This religion," he wrote, "is called islamisme."[4] Not only did his usage depart from Sale's, but so did his conclusion: "It was not by force of arms that islamisme established itself over more than half of our hemisphere. It was by enthusiasm and persuasion." The great nineteenth-century French dictionary by Littré quoted just this passage from Voltaire's Essai sur les mœurs when it defined islamisme as "the religion of Mahomet."

In the course of the nineteenth century, this usage gained ground throughout Europe. Alexis de Tocqueville, writing in 1838, found the "root of islamisme in Judaism."[5] In 1883, Ernest Renan, pioneer of philology, published an influential essay entitled L'Islamisme et la science. As a French historian has noted, Renan's use of islamisme "did not have the present-day sense of the political utilization of Islam."[6] Rather, he meant Islam. It is in this sense, too, that Islamism appeared in the New English Dictionary (now known as the Oxford English Dictionary) in a fascicle published in 1900. It defined Islamism as "the religious system of the Moslems; Mohammedanism." Even the word Islamist appeared there, defined as "an orthodox Mohammedan," and the entry included this example from a magazine article published in 1895: "Judgment should not be pronounced against Islam and Islamists on rancorous and partisan statements."

...

OK, there is much more in this very informative article. I was wondering if we could get comment on this? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Further to what the OED says

Att the risk of being repetitive, I need to requote the article that Pename gave us from the OED:

Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation. Became the favored state policy during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 1876–1909) and was adopted and promoted by members of the ruling bureaucratic and intellectual elites of the empire. With the rise of colonialism, became a defensive ideology, directed against European political, military, economic, and missionary penetration. Posed the sultan as a universal caliph to whom Muslims everywhere owed allegiance and obedience. Sought to offset military and economic weakness in the Muslim world by favoring central government over the periphery and Muslims over non-Muslims in education, office, and economic opportunities. Ultimately failed and collapsed after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Resurrected during the resurgence of Islam after World War II. Expressed via organizations such as the Muslim World League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which seek to coordinate Islamic solidarity through political and economic cooperation internationally. Has also served as an important political tool in recruiting all-Muslim support against foreign aggressions.

SOURCE: "Islamism" Oxford Dictionary of Islam. John L. Esposito, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004

Let's lay this to rest.

OK, I was confused to start off with, but here's how I take this: the sentence "Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation." It seems to me that what's being said here is that the concept of "sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims" has existed since the early days of Islam, and not the term "Islamism" itself. I mean, it can't mean that or it'd be factually wrong because Islamism comes from the French word islamisme, which was itself coined by Voltaire, who existed in the 18th century. The context of what is written would also bear this out because the next sentence is "Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation."

It seems Pename didn't read this carefully enough. Heck, I know I didn't! I thought it meant the same thing Pename meant when I first gave it a cursory read. But then, that's what happens when you use a non-full sentence like "Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims". It means that a certain ambiguity creeps into the text, and can cause confusion. Who would have thought the OED would write such a thing? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What the Turks and others were engaged in was called "Pan-Islamic" thought. At least in English. And had close to nothing to do with what is understood as "Islamism" today. Just because they were both advocate "sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims" doesn't make them the same. I mean, apples and oranges are both round fruit that are some times sweet and some times sour.
In the Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Lawrence of Arabia refers to the:
the hierarchic conception of Islam and the pan-Islamic theories of the old Sultan" See: [4]
I would feel better if any source other than the OED said anything even remotely like what Pename is saying, equating pre-Deobandi thought with Islamism.
As for taking the OED's word for it; well, if we are to just take the OED's or any other mainstream, establishment encyclopedia's word on things such as these, why are we wasting our time working on the Wikipedia? Really, as I have said before, the main reason I associate myself with the Wikipedia is that I consider it a chance to receive and present a more complete picture of the world than I grew up having to read.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:57, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
You poor fellows are apparently being confused by terse style of writing employed by dictionaries. The correct interpretation of the definition is clearly: "Islamism: [An] Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. [Islamism] Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam." The reason that the OED leaves out the words in brackets is because that is the style of unbridged dictionaries - in order to maintain brevity, they avoid repeating the word being defined, at the expense of grammatical incompleteness. -- Pename
And I put forward to you that you don't understand your own sources of information. Have a nice day Pename. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse

Due warning: every time our anonymous friend makes a personal attack, I'm removing it. See Wikipedia:no personal attacks, also see Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. I've had quite enough of their abuse. To the anonymous user: start showing some maturity. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Censorship of Timeline from 600AD to 1900AD

A group, particularly "Ta bu shi da yu" and "Mustafaa," have once again started a revert war. First these individuals tried to deny that the OED is a credable source and at the same time they tried to provide alternative sources such as Daniel Pipes and obscure internet dictionaries at commerical internet companies. Having failed at that, they have now decided to deny the content of the OED entries of "Islamism" instead of trying to deny the whole OED itself. Even though the OED clearly states that Islamism (a) has existed since the early days of Islam as a religious concept and (b) is a word used to describe the universalist sociopolitical and fundamentalist aspects of Islamic ideology, they are insisting that the OED states that "Islamism" only existed since the year AD 1900 (an arbitrary date which "Ta bu shi da yu" essentially pulled out of thin air and used as an excuse to delete all entires in the timeline from AD 630 to AD 1900). I don't have time to fight the deleting of information from this template by these individuals, and their actions (such as denying the unambigious content of cited sources, or denying the credability of universally accepted reference sources). There is really no way to stop this small group of individuals from engaging in such actions, at least with regards to the wikipedia articles regarding Islam. Therefore I am resigning from editing this timeline and engaging in this discussion. -- Pename

NOTE: NO PERSONAL ATTACKS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THIS POST. PARTICULAR ACTIONS AND ARGUMENTATIVE TACTICS HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN CRITICISED, AND PARTICULAR CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE BEEN CRITICISED. BUT THESE CRITICISM ARE NOT DIRECTED AT ANY INDIVIDUAL; THIS IS AN ACCORDANCE WITH WIKIPEDIA OFFICAL POLICY:


"Personal attacks do not include
  • Claims explicitly limited to edits. "This edit is stupid" is not a personal attack. 'You are stupid" is.
  • Reasonable and moderated language used to describe a user's actions in the context of dispute resolution or requesting sysop action, unless such a request is patently absurd and clearly designed only to cause offense. [5]
I beg to differ, and have removed the parts where you have made personal attacks. As per policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


And yet you have still not answered my query about the fact that islamisme was a term coined by Voltaire. Are you going to respond, or are you just going to just going to keep making personal attacks? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"And yet you have still not answered my query about the fact that islamisme was a term coined by Voltaire." <--- The dictionary is where one goes to look for the accepted contemporary meanings of words. One does not turn to etymology for such information in the event of such a dispute. The etymology of a word and its current accepted definition are two different things. Furthermore, when the question arises as to which dictionary, every well educated person in the English speaking world is aware that the OED and its various related specialized dictionaries (e.g. The Oxford Dictionary of Isam) is the standard dictionary reference in academics. Of course one has to be able to READ and UNDERSTAND the dictionary before for it to be of any use. But YOU have demonstrated that you cannot understand the dictionary, and are accusing ME of misunderstanding it! The OED states, "Islamism ... has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam ... emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism" An INTELLIGENT and EDUCATED individual would immediatly recognize that the OED is explaining that the political ideology of Islam has existed since the early days of Islam, but it has MANIFESTED itself in different ways and different times, depending on the military and political circumstances of the times, and its MODERN manifestation arrose in the 19th century at the height of European colonialism. This does NOT mean that Islamism has not existed or has no relevant history prior to the year 1900 AD, contrary to your claims about "Islamism" and what the OED says about it.
And once again, we are at an impasse. Apparently the dictionary says: "Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation." Which I read as Islamism: Ideology calling for sociopolicitical solidarity among all Muslims. That sociopolitical solidarity has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. This is backed up by the next sentence, which talks about how Islamism emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism. However, the dictionary entry is ambiguous. You can't claim anything like you've claimed.
I notice several things this time: Firstly you note that you go to the dictionary for "accepted contemporary meanings of words". Which implies that not even you beleive that this word has had to same meaning over time. I also notice that you still haven't addressed the fact that Voltaire coined the word in the eighteenth century, and instead you tell me that the OED is correct and the final word on the matter, which really has nothing to do with my Voltaire query. Care to address that issue, or will you only say "The OED is correct!" and not listen to what I'm saying? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Are you going to respond, or are you just going to just going to keep making personal attacks?"<--- (a) the above does not constitute personal attacks; do not make false accusations, as that is concidred a violation of official wikipedia policy and (b) I've made it entirely clear that I will be no longer be responding to your outrageous claims, which I had already debunked in the post which you deleted. Nevertheless, I elaborated on your misunderstanding of the dictionary defintion immediatly above. I will not be responding any more than this to your posts here; I am not interested in responding to such ridiculously irrational posts which are void of all good faith and are now attempting to completely turn the meaning of the OED's defintion on its head, nor am I interested in editing this template anymore since you and your Islamic friend have been waging a revert war here. The only reason I continue to edit this discussion page at all is because I want to ensure that a permanant and vivid record of your actions on this template is kept. -- Pename
If you're not interested in editing the template or the talk page (which you've already stated) then why am I replying to you on the talk page right now?! And incidently, I'm not turning the OED's definition on its head! Its ambiguous, and you know it. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Apperance in firefox

The table looks weird (at least on Firefox). It's only on the right side of the page and there's a big blank in the middle. Couldn't we use a standard format or is this done on purpose? Tony

[edit] What IS this crap?

This is definitely one of the worst articles I've found on WP so far. But since there's a huge talk page, I'll have to assume there's people who actually like it. How could anyone suggest that the attacks of secular or even atheist organizations, several of which were led by Christians, are examples of "Islamist militancy"? Amazing. Also, it is riddled with errors. For example, the Maalot massacre was done by DFLP, not PFLP. Both were Christian-led Communist movements ... not Islamist, nor Islamic, not Muslim, not even religious.

I suggest a name change to Erratic and ad hoc list of violent acts by people with weird, Arab-sounding names, since that's what it's about. Or a swift and merciless deletion. Arre 04:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/i/m/Template_talk%7ETimeline_of_Islamist_militancy_2aa3.html"