What is Islamism?

[@Pfhorrest]

I was thinking of commenting on how I never have any comments to make on topics like this or Christian Nationalism where the the whole thing is just so wrong from the very outset (the thing you're discussing, not your discussion of it) that I don't think I'll have anything novel to say... but then at the end here you mention the problem of the fundamental irreconcilability between religions or religious factions, and that actually ties very closely to the heart of my whole philosophy, which I've mentioned before is named Commensurablism. When I brought it up before it was in the context of postmodernism, and that helped me realize that that is the real enemy of mine, but when I first conceived of it, the twin enemies I had in mind were on the one hand, relativism and the kind of skepticism that can't help but lead to it, and on the other hand, dogmatism and the kind of transcendentalism that can't help but lead to it, as epitomized best by religions. If we take as our first principle that we must reject any principles that lead to the inability to even conduct an investigation into which answers to our questions are superior or inferior to each other, then right out the bat we must reject both the kind of relativism that says there aren't any superior or inferior answers to our question, *and* the kind of dogmatism that says there is no question as to which the superior and inferior answers are. With that must also go skepticism in the sense of justification, as in, the principle to reject all beliefs until reason to accept them is found, since that leads down an infinite regress and leaves us unable to hold any belief above any other; and also any belief in things beyond all phenomenal experience, since such things cannot be tested and so cannot be questioned, and so could only be held in a way beyond all question. Such dogmatic belief in transcendent things is the hallmark characteristic of all religion, and so the wholesale rejection of religion is one of the first two steps anyone must take to even begin an honest investigation that has even the possibility of reconciling differences of belief.

[@johnmanno2052]

Faith based irreconcilable sans violence? I guess all that violence visited upon all those labor unions in the US was the result of faith? To say that faith based polities are somehow more violent than secular ones seems a bit unfair, and I'm an atheist

[@Yash_Coool]

The way he combines different theories.... thinkers on a particular topic This Guy is the best Teacher on Philosophy whom I am gonna have while I am alive

[@saintsour124]

careful with saying only one way of following islam, this is a half truth at best because there is room to wiggle around in because of the different fiqh madhabs, this is more of an extreme khawarij type description rather than ortodox islam

[@Based_Mannn]

I'll prefer any of the 4 fiqh to be the law of the land than some random crack head Khawarij to rule over us neither would i want a secular state of law.

[@RaiiiL]

If you beleive in the Doomsday Clock, that Scientists value alot. Then you have to believe that Islam is the Last Religion and the Quran is the Last Book Allah c.c has sent to this Earth. Also a great mention for Christians: Prophet (SAW) said: I've been sent here to complete the great manners and good attitude. Also a Great Mention: Muslims believe in Jesus too. Also he is the Savior of the Earth as told in our beloved Prophet's Book, The Quran.that has been sent by God Through The Angel Gabriel, So yea

[@ziryabjamal]

Tareq Osman has the best definition of Islamism, his book on the topic is great. For an outlier who scrambles your definition of an Islamist see the work of Professor Muhamamd al-Massari, a Saudi dissident living in London UK who argues the basis of any islamic governnance is the assent of the people.

[@abdallahalsayyed5785]

"Although I am a follower and admirer of your beautiful and scientific content, I am discouraged by what I heard in this video. I hope you will read my message with a scientific and neutral mindset. The idea of neutral content is for people to speak for themselves and explain their culture as they know it, not as others see or understand it. Firstly, the term 'Islamisism" used as a title is a Western term and not an Islamic one, meaning that you are naming a phenomenon that does not actually exist according to its people. Then you talk about the essence of Islam and its reality as you see it, not as it actually is, and you reduce Islamic concepts to being the opinions of some individuals, such as Khomeini, who was actually a French creation. You can trace his history or others like Qutb, who represents himself and not Islam. You mentioned that Islamic governance contradicts and rejects democracy and even human rights. Do you have any evidence from the Quran that it fights against human rights? As for democracy, Islam is the religion that came to promote equality, justice, preserve rights, spread love, compassion, creativity, and knowledge. If you find evidence in the Quran that it opposes these rights, then you can prove what you say. Otherwise, you cannot consider anyone who does not follow the teachings of the Quran as 'Islamized.' The term 'Al-Qaeda' was created by the US to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Go back and search, and you will find all these facts. Search for the involvement of French companies and some Western intelligence agencies in supporting and working with ISIS. You will find that these are the creations of the West, which invented the term 'Islamization' that only applies to Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Iranian regime. And not to islam

[@KupCakeGamer]

🤍

[@jaredgreen2363]

What then is the right word for a Muslim theocrat and their ideology?

[@jaredgreen2363]

Also take your pile of half truths and go away. Muslim theocrats not only exist, they are quite common in Muslim majority countries. Khomeini had nothing to do with France, most Muslim theocrats in fact reject democracy, while the Quran simply doesn’t mention it in any way, though it has many passages that explicitly contradict modern interpretations of human rights. Al qaeda, the group, gave themselves that name before being funded by the us government to fight the Soviet Union. And isis is just another branch of Al Qaeda, which rose to power in the confusion caused by the war on terror, which never should have happened.

[@abdallahalsayyed5785]

Firstly, I thank you for your interest in my comment. We must scientifically distinguish between Islam as an approach that adopts the Qur'anic text, which carries constants that do not change when interpreting it and do not accept interpretation, as all Muslim scholars agree, and between the variables that the Qur'an allowed and left for interpretation and explanation, and between Christianity or Judaism as religions. The problem that non-Muslim scholars fall into when studying Islam is that they compare it with other religions, which is a wrong approach because Islam is the last of religions and is a complete system that includes doctrine, monotheism, legislation, laws, personal status, and as I said it has a constant section that does not change and legislative sections that change within a limited range that does not exceed the range of the constants and does not conflict with them. When you say that Islam is an ideology, this is a mistake because the concept of ideology does not apply to Islam because it is not limited to its legislation for Muslims only, but it transcends them to non-Muslims and to life in all its forms from plant, air, animal, it deals with the lived reality and does not impose its teachings on those who do not accept it. For non-Muslims, there are rights to religious or legislative freedom, while preserving the rights of citizenship for all equally. This is what made Jefferson, the founder of the United States, use the Qur'an in outlining the American Constitution for human rights, religious freedom, and the like. You can search for Jefferson's Qur'an to confirm what I'm saying. In fact, the French Revolution was a revolution against Christianity, but unfortunately, they look at all religions as if they were Christianity and treat them similarly, which made a confirmatory bias in the West towards anything that is religion. Best regards, and thank you for the question.

[@subliminallime4321]

Islamic transnationalism kind of reminds me of the Treaty of Tordesillas where a dispute between two Catholic countries was settled by the pope at the time basically drawing a line on a map... Catholic transnationalism. Or at least that's how I remember the treaty, I'm sure it was actually a bit more complicated & nuanced.

[@rafaelallenblock]

Treaty of Tordesillas and no, you pretty much nailed it.

[@Yash_Coool]

The way he combines different theories.... thinkers on a particular topic😊 This Guy is the best Teacher on Philosophy whom I am gonna have while I am alive

[@ayoubannacik7306]

3:58 Prophet* Mohammed peace be upon him

[@keifer7813]

This is just hugely incorrect. Islamism is not a thing. Those features you described it having, are INTEGRAL to Islam itself. - The belief in ruling by God's divine laws (Sharia) - The belief and desire for a supreme ruler over the Muslim world, i.e a caliph and a caliphate - The belief in global Islamic supremacy - The excommunication of anyone who thinks secularism is better than Sharia - The rejection of religious pluralism where all religions have equal treatment These are all heavily supported in the Quran, Hadiths, and scholarly consensus throughout history from all manner of sects. "Islamism" is a distraction to pretend that Islam itself is alright and shouldn't be lambasted

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

One of the many problems with religion is that people have different interpretations of it. There are Christians that reject part or all of the Bible. Instead of getting in an argument over who is a "real" adherent of X religion, it is easier to just categorize them (since most sects think their interpretation is the one true interpretation and everyone else is not a "real" X). There are people who call themselves Muslims who do not believe in Islamism. If they are not Muslims, what are they? They are surely not atheists, nor are Christians. This is one of the central flaws of any religion. There is no objective way to settle disagreements, so they keep splintering. Which to my way of thinking makes it all the less likely that any of them are true.

[@keifer7813]

@@CarneadesOfCyrene Words have meanings and ideologies have core tenets. Yes there can be differences in interpretations of certain aspects but the core is generally well understood. This idea that anyone can decide what Islam is about is just as silly as me deciding capitalism is about a classless, moneyless society. That's categorically incorrect, right? That'd be communism which is very different Similarly, it's categorically incorrect to say Islam isn't necessarily about those things I listed. As I said, the Quran, Hadiths, and scholarly consensus corroborate it. Just because someone calls themselves a Muslim doesn't make them so. If you believe Muhammad was God, you're not Muslim lol. Just like you're not Christian if you believe Jesus was the devil. The splintering does occur but like I said, all sects agree on some fundamentals.

[@RENATVS_IV]

For me, the main problem is the one exposed in the final objection. At the end, they don't have to change their minds, they only have to find a passage, justify their position the best way they can using that passage and attract people their cause

[@Bloodgo]

Here before this blows up.

[@vampireducks1622]

Your definition is very crude and basically false. Islamist believe "that the right to rule derives from God, not the people"? Actually, most notable Islamist intellectuals would probably say that "God or people" is a false binary or false dichotomy. Ironically, the only people that really believe in that are what you might call secular fundamentalists. Probably some extreme Islamists believe that too. But I don't think the majority of them do, certainly not the majority of their thinkers.

[@sebakazkaz3665]

i appreciate this a lot. i respect the effort and commitment to an unbiased academic tone. however i must make a comment that in the introduction there seems to be a portrayal of the notion that science and engineering are to be “imported” from western civilization into the islamic community and completely diminishes the fact that scientific thinking and pondering are actually inherent to the structure of islamic belief. I can use a plethora of verses for proof but Al-Jathiya (The Kneeling) verse 5 stands out: “And the alternation of the day and the night, the provision sent down from the skies by Allah-reviving the earth after its death-and the shifting of the winds, are signs for people of understanding.” It is easily understandable that “people of understanding” refers to a population that has scientific thinking as a priority. All the natural phenomena mentioned in this verse are up for scientific research and contemplation. Not to mention the Golden Age of Islam that saw a thriving community of Mathematicians (Algebra and Algorithms come from here), Scientists and engineers of both men and women. Universities were an initiative started by muslims. The history is huge.

[@ahmadisam4539]

wahhabism didn’t effect on Islamisim movements until 70s of 20th century . Rashid Rida wasn't that kind of Salafism wahhabism is very radical wahhabis strongly oppoes all kind of Islamic philosophy and theology they strongly oppoes Sufism and beliefs that sufi orders are apostates and oppose building mausoleum for Muslims whom died etc However if we want to make Islamists family tree we must focus on Muslim brotherhood Because they are the prototype of Islamic movements all the liberals Islamist e.g Hassan Hanafi Rached Ghannouchi were Muslim brotherhood members and radical Islamists e.g Abdullah Azzam oussama bin laden were M.B members also

[@Based_Mannn]

If you're a Sufi grave worshipper and the one who seeks divine help from someone apart from Allah, you can't be a muslim. ll 4 fiqh are Islamic and their taqlid is acceptable but Sufi order is product of apostasy. Period. There is no such thing as Liberal Islam. period. Islam is definately by Quran and sunnah.

[@DWAGON1818]

So some notes related to what you said. Muhammad(pbuh) wasn't just a political leader. That was just one part of His life. Even the Sufis see Him as a human being par excellence, who should be followed in everything to achieve spiritual perfection. In terms of beliefs and morals there is just one version of Islam. But politically it takes many forms. There were fatwas on jihad being obligatory and jihad being necessary only in self defense. Both were accepted as they were given in different regions and different times. For 1100 years after the Prophet Muslims were the super power of the world. Rashidun, Ummayads, Abbasids and then the Ottomons. It is after that the European powers, particular the British became the world super power that things like Wahhabism and other movements of reformation was born. It wasn't then where it started. This is part and parcel of the Islamic belief system. Pluralism is wrongly defined. People will get the wrong impression. Pluralism means coexisting with other people.There are right now 4 schools of sunni Islam and all agree on the other's interpretation without calling anyone an infidel. Non-Muslim minorities will be governed by their own personal laws in an Islamic state. What you are referring to is called Salafism. That too of the extreme type. Your take on ISIS being Islamic is a bit naive. There is no disenfranchisement of minorities. Is Pakistan minorities had a right to vote since its inception. Disputes can even arise amongst secular people. Which secular ideology do you want? Liberalism or socialism? Which type of liberalism? American or French? Please look at the people killed by the French in Algeria and American in the 21st century. Or even what the secular communist did in USSR. Even Hilter was secular. This no where comes near Islamist killing. But yet you never mention them as being prone to violence. There's much more but i think this is good to start a conversation.

[@whysoreligious2657]

Why are purposing lying about all 4 schools (madhabs) being agreement and not calling people infidels? Then you say that nonmuslims would be ruled by their own laws. Such a lie. Read Reliance of the Traveler a Shafi book of fiqh and read the Pact of Uthman. Stop spreading nonsense

[@whysoreligious2657]

Funny you said calling isis Muslim/Islamic naive. Muhammad said in the authentic sunnah that any Muslim that takfirs (claims another Muslim isn’t a Muslim) one of them isn’t and will reside in hell. Only Allah knows if you will be the one in hell at that point according to Islamic theology.

[@DWAGON1818]

@@whysoreligious2657 when have I called them kafir? I said they aren't Islamic. Not that they aren't Muslims. What's so funny about it?

[@DWAGON1818]

@@whysoreligious2657 stop replying. You know nothing about the four schools? Show one time where any of the 4 imams called any of the other a kafir. During Umar's caliphate all non-Muslims had their own personal laws. Read something at least.

[@whysoreligious2657]

@@DWAGON1818 they are Islamic. The teach the quran and sunnah. They pray five times a day. They follow rules of fiqh put forth by all four madhabs. Learn the religion