a varied of terms have been used to discuss aspects
of Islamist political movements
Islam: religion vs Islamist: a movement that has the objective of bringnin more of a particular
version of islam in public sphere. Islmaist is a particular social ideology. Not all muslims are
fundamentalist: it is kinda prejotive or that it draws some some similarity with the Christian
fundamentalist. Salafists are fundamentalist though. So theres some utility in the term and so
there fundamentalist is quite useful
jihadist: problematically understood in the west. Not necessarily violent but its struggle.
However when its used with reference to islamist movements, its used with reference to violent
movements which blve that violence is an appropriate way to achieve their ideological views.
salafi: islamist with a conservative or fundamentalist view of islam who wanna return to that
kinda islam that they thought was practiced at time of prophet. All religions have this continuum
where some see religion very literal and unchangeable while there are others who blve it should
be seen in some contextual sense.
takfiri: accusation that some one else isn’t really a muslim. Was first use cleverly by Jordanian
jihadists cos jihad has this good wala canotation. Was a label to to legitimize these groups which
were using violence against other muslims and so using this notion of being insufficiently muslim
to target them.
radical vs moderate: term for ppl we like more.
establishment vs opposition. In many regimes the ulema are closely linked to centres of power
like saudia. Egypt historically alazhar, the institution of Islamic learning cooperative relation
with regime. Alazhar establishment islam. Brotherhood in current scene is opposition Islamic
movement. Alazhar has been interested in protecting influence even with regime changes and
has therefore seen brotherhood as a rival in many ways. Saudia: salafist leaders who are
supporters of regime and u have salafist imams who are supporters of AQ. So particular groups
can be close to regimes and against them and it can change over time
modernist: religious doctrine is flexible and can adapt to changing circumstances vs
conservative: uphold the way religious practice has occuered in the past vs revivalist: argue that
they both are wrong. Like Egyptian salafist. That modernist are wrong and introducing
inappropriate change and innovation in islam. Conservatives are wrong cos they are stuck to
traditional ways of doing things which may not have been the right way in actual islam n u need
revival of original islam. timeline of (modern) Islamist politics
1928 Muslim Brotherhood founded in Egypt
1952-1970 era of secular(ish) Arab nationalism: it was secularish cos nasir did
use Islamic references in his speecher but it was also argued that the arab
nationality is regardless of u being muslim or Christian. And so wasn’t an islamist
movement. So islamist movements were pretty week. Nasir died in 70s. gulf
states became more n more imp as oil prices went up. Iran revo.
mid-1970s growing power of (conservative) GCC states
1979 Iranian revolution: overthrow of western backed shah which showed how
imp islamist mobilization cld be.
1981 assassination of Sadat by Islamic Jihad. Sadat first tolerated islamist as
counterweight to nasirist but when he clamped down on em he was assassinated
1982 Hama uprising: Syrian uprising by Syrian brotherhood.
Pattern: rise of political islam in multiple countries.
1985 establishment of Hizbullah: following Israeli occupation of lebonan
1988 establishment of Hamas in context of first palestenian uprising out of
1991-92 FIS wins Algerian elections; civil war follows
2001 9/11 attacks by al-Qaida
2003- US intervention in Iraq, Iraqi insurgency. In which for a period militant
islamist group in sunni community bcme more mor en more imp ultimately they
weaken a bit but they are still active
2005 Muslim Brotherhood does well in Egyptian elections. Still wasn’t allowed
to bcme a legal party under Mubarak
2006 Hamas wins PLC elections. Doesn’t win by a big degree
So growth of islamist movements from late 70s uptil early 2000s.
timeline of (modern) Islamist politics
2011 al-Nahda (Ennahda) success in Tunisian transitional
Elections: wins with plurality not majority.
2011 FJP (Muslim Brotherhood) and al-Nour (Salafist) success
in Egyptian transitional elections
2011 PJD (islamist party) forms government after Moroccan elections (plurality not
majority) forms a coalition govt. in mrocoo ofcourse the power of govt is limited by the
2012 Morsi (FJP/MB) elected President of Egypt: with warning sign that a) voter
turnout falling with every election and also we see him only narrowly beeting his rival
even though his rival was a former crony so not a lot of pro revo ppl were not ok with
idea of having an islamist pres. A striking change from parli elections.
2012 MB does poorly in Libyan elections (but later gains
strength) it wasn’t very organized, since then its gathered increasing number of
independent under its umbrella. But poli parties are very weak in libya ruption o Syrin ivil wr n rom n onwrs t
rowt o jii roups witin t ontxt o Syrin
opposition wo o wll os ty r itin wll os ty r
mor isiplin n os ty r in support y xtrnl
tors ot ovts nssrily ut privt iniviuls t n
prtly os Syrin opposition is inrsinly upst wit
t intl worl s not lpin tm suiintly n s tt
nr rows it ls tm to support mor ril Islmi
movmnts n polriztion ssoit wit ivil wr in
Trs t pprtus o AQ in Irq mu o wi movs ovr to
it in Syri too
2012 Jabhat al-Nusra formed, growth of jihadi group within
2013 Morsi (FJP/MB) overthrown; widespread arrests of MB
leaders, party declared illegal; most Salafists (not all of them) and al-Azhar
cooperate with new regime but also trying to limit what the regime does in the
constitution negotiation process.
the rise of Islamist politics due to several things:
the failures of Arab nationalism: arab nationalism promised great things abt arab unity
abt the struggle against Israel(arab israeli war lost), modernization (a bit happened), dint
lead to any lasting unity(only 3 years of unity btw Syria and Egypt followed by a coup in
Syria and the unity fell) .
Islamist politics as a cultural defense against globalization: local defence mechanism
against globalization , in rush or exposure to modern capitalist society, tv, adds, so like a
cultural defenisivens at a time of changing values.
reaction against the policies of the West, Arab-Israeli conflict
socio-economic conditions. Islamic movements spoke for poor, social justice, and
Islamic movements have some organization advantages since they were rooted within
institutions of religion. In a sense they had a building system using mosques etc
(proliferation across th arab world of small often unlicenced mosques) (you have the
system in sunni islam where any one can be an imam and so u had this system where
mosques provide place where u can preach religiously and politicallyu. The left had that
in tradeunions but tradeunions werere under much control.
oppositional advantages of Islam:
system of dissemination
message of justice so Islamic movements used it and agued against inequlity
etc and so they made reliogusly based poli arguments
difficulty of suppression: difficutly in repressijng Islamic. U cant go in a mosque
drag an imam out n beat him up. U can beat up uni students. But beating and
detaining imams have a high poli cost. So provides a degree of protection
activities within civil society. For long. Lots of social groups. Dint necessarily
have a poli agenda. Provision of services. Which cld then be used to recuirt and get support for poli purposes. Don’t overstate this. Research some islamist
charities aren’t that Islamic in passing those provisions. Brotherhood in Egypt did
this. Salafist movements in Egypt and Tunisia often do this and on the grassroots
level and that can help their poli credibility at election time.
Rise of islamist parties in context of the arab spring. Has the rise
peaked? Strikinkin shift from morsi winning the coup to salafist backing a popular
coup. Does that mean the Islamic trend is now reversed? Or was that Egypt specific.
the rise of Islamist politics
impact of regime policy
encouragement of Islamists? sadat used it to kinda counterweight the nassirt
left with islamist right. It kinda backfired on him. Jordan brotherhood was an ally
of monarchy against leftist and arab nationalist groups (till 1989). Israel
tolerated hamas emergence cos they thought they can use it to weaken PLO
hoping to divide palestenians by infighting.
exclusion/repression breeds radicalism? the hypothesis that if u exclude
Islamic parties they will radicalize and theres the hypothesis that if u include them
in poli stuff they will moderate.
exclusion/repression breeds moderation?
Not clear wthr the inclusion exclusion scene always holds. Like emergence of hamas is
a prime example like palestenian muslim brotherhood had opposed armed struggle
against Israel but thn hamas emerged so clearly repression can radicalize
But AKP in turkey is like decendent of islmic poli parties which wilkl run for election and
then got declared illegal and they will reorganize come back a bit moderate. So
attempts to suppress Islamic Turkish parties made them more more more moderate. So
u have to be careful abt inclusion moderation debate. Possibilities of inclusion aftr 2011
did led to radical groups come into parli politics in Egypt. Sometimes they moderate for
founded in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna
current General Guide: Muhammed Badie
favours (re)Islamicization of Egyptian society from below. Long time debate
within the brotherhood of doing it from below or engaging in politiccs from above.
rily tis formed paramilitary “secret apparatus” in 1930s. they
shifted in the direcgtion of engaging in politics and running for elections through
Mubarak era after 2011. And prior to 2011 they emerged as the largest
banned by Abd al-Nasir from 1950s
allowed to reemerge by Sadat, but still semi-repressed emerged as largest parliamentary opposition group in Egypt
FJP-led coalition won 37% of vote in 2011 election
Salafist coalition (led by al-Nour) won 28%
Mohamed Morsi won 25/52% of vote in 2012 Presidential election. The percentage
scene was 25 not 52 cos like only half of Egyptians voted so it can be said that he got
only 25 percent votes/. Declining turnout was an early sign of problem. Not only of
legitimacy but the whole poli scene
dilemmas of governing: never run a govt ever ever
electoral competition: constant. All other parties tryin to look u bad.
practical challenges: coupled with popular expectations and so u know dint happen
lack of experience
machinery of former Mubarak regime: was hostile and non corpoative ti brotherhood
and dint want them to succeed.
Morsi himself, his leadership style was an exclusionary then an inclusionary one. He did
a poor job of reaching out to the opposition not that the opposition was interested but he
increasingly alienated just abt everyone including other islamist, It doesn’t tell u how these ppl voted. Poor n rich districts vote differently. Islamist did better in poor
than rich. Cos of the message of social justice, activisim in socialism and partly cos liberal parties
had elitism who tended to run on personalities and did not do grassroot campaigning and so
serious problems in thei campaign. Correlation of voting patterns and behaviours.
1) Salafist hai
3) Brotherhood ▯ thye had such wide support in parli elections that there wasn’t any significant
corelations and so they did well amongs classes n poor n rich n ages n stuff
So using diff methods give u diff results.
Muslim Brotherhood is also found in
other Arab countries.
although still connected, these are now largely autonomous from the original
Egyptian branch. Not bidnign hierarchichal scene.
founded by militant Muslim Brotherhood members during first
briefly tolerated by Israel as counterweight to PLO groups
supports the liberation of “all Palestine,” opposed 1993 Oslo Agreement
has more recently expressed acceptance of Palestinian state within 1967
Hamas has been ambigious abt it cos theres no absolute poli payoff for hamas to be open abt its
views right now. And cos there are real issues within hamas over this issue and so they have
papered over these differences. Striking parallel with the plo. The plo originaly was established to
create a non sectarian democ state in all of Palestine. N starting in 1974 shifted to a 2 state
solution cos there were difference, the formulation was they will establish a militant fighting
aurhtoity on any liberated soil which was code word for if we liberate the west bank in gaza we
will have our state there. But it dint quite say that.first we will liberate gaza and then we will
liberate the west.
Hamas had somewhat same position. Some Hamas leaders think that its not possible to eliminate
Israel. But cant say that cos their more radical members will get angry. So now they talk abt
establishment of a state in west bank in gaza followed by a long truce with Israel which can be
sold to radicals as we will fight with Israel later and to 2 state ppl as ok 2 states.
So striking parallel btw how hamas leaders some of them have shifted to the 2 state solution and
how it happened in plo too.
voltil support. fell from around 25% in 1993 to around 10% during Oslo