Islamism is not the same as Islam, Islamism is political Islam. At its worst (e.g., some forms of Salafism), it’s fundamentalist, socially conservative, and aims to wipe out or replace all other cultural expressions under its rule. ISIS is an example of the worst of Islamism. People who mean Islam by itself tend to just refer to it as Islam, but adjectival forms include Islamic or Muslim as opposed to Islamist (which has the specific meaning laid out above).
Islamism is new to Uyghur culture and has made attempts at changing it. This is what the person you are replying to is highlighting.
Also, and this is mostly just an aside, but the reference to Christianity being so powerful ignores how Islam is the fastest growing and second largest religion in the world. Protecting Muslim minorities in the Western World and protecting Muslims and Muslim countries abroad from imperialism and hate are both admirable and necessary actions, but Islam is not helpless nor does it lack power. I mainly point this out because the last statement in your post strikes me as symptomatic of the same paternalism that is making liberals upset about the news of other Muslims finding China’s treatment of the Uyghurs to not be problematic. It’s not a huge deal, but it’s a thing of perspective I think is worth pointing out to make this a constructive conversation.
the last statement in your post strikes me as symptomatic of the same paternalism that is making liberals upset about the news of other Muslims finding China’s treatment of the Uyghurs to not be problematic.
I’m not sure how you’re getting paternalism from my comment. You must mean the last sentence of the first paragraph. I’ll quote it here for context:
The same could be said of Christianity, and I would still not like it; however, Christianity is so powerful in the world that I probably wouldn’t come to its defense.
This isn’t paternalism, in my opinion. I merely don’t think Christianity needs more people coming to its defense in English speaking circles, whereas Islam, in English speaking circles, is demonized by a lot of reactionaries, including those reactionaries on the left who are still going through their new-atheism phase.
If the OP was indeed referring to groups which are “political Islam” and seeking to push conservative and regressive changes rather than groups that are simply Islamic, it would indeed be a misunderstanding on my part. If you re-read my comment, I was careful to say that I was interpreting Islamophobia.
I think more careful language is warranted in the OP’s post, personally. I’m no expert on this distinction between “Political Islam” and “Islam” by using the term “Islamist”, but I’d guess neither are a lot of other leftists. I would be worried, though I do not know with any certainty, for our Islam-practicing comrades to come into this space and feel attacked by that post, not because they believe in the regressive ideas described, but because they might not understand the distinction that is attempting to be made.
To reiterate, though, I may just be more ignorant than most on this particular topic, in which case I think anyone could safely disregard my thoughts.
I’m sorry if my post seemed anti-Islam, I made the assumption people would understand the difference between Islamic and Islamist, I will add a note so people do not misunderstand.
The word ‘Islamist’ only has the meaning of political Islam and is incredibly commonly used, even in liberal media. The idea that ‘not a lot of other leftists’ would know it is… kinda baffling, given how much actually obscure terminology we bandy about casually.
BlackLotus’ posts do seem ignorant rather than malicious (giving the benefit of the doubt and presuming that it’s not a case of concern trolling)
Islamism is not the same as Islam, Islamism is political Islam. At its worst (e.g., some forms of Salafism), it’s fundamentalist, socially conservative, and aims to wipe out or replace all other cultural expressions under its rule. ISIS is an example of the worst of Islamism. People who mean Islam by itself tend to just refer to it as Islam, but adjectival forms include Islamic or Muslim as opposed to Islamist (which has the specific meaning laid out above).
Islamism is new to Uyghur culture and has made attempts at changing it. This is what the person you are replying to is highlighting.
Also, and this is mostly just an aside, but the reference to Christianity being so powerful ignores how Islam is the fastest growing and second largest religion in the world. Protecting Muslim minorities in the Western World and protecting Muslims and Muslim countries abroad from imperialism and hate are both admirable and necessary actions, but Islam is not helpless nor does it lack power. I mainly point this out because the last statement in your post strikes me as symptomatic of the same paternalism that is making liberals upset about the news of other Muslims finding China’s treatment of the Uyghurs to not be problematic. It’s not a huge deal, but it’s a thing of perspective I think is worth pointing out to make this a constructive conversation.
I’m not sure how you’re getting paternalism from my comment. You must mean the last sentence of the first paragraph. I’ll quote it here for context:
This isn’t paternalism, in my opinion. I merely don’t think Christianity needs more people coming to its defense in English speaking circles, whereas Islam, in English speaking circles, is demonized by a lot of reactionaries, including those reactionaries on the left who are still going through their new-atheism phase.
If the OP was indeed referring to groups which are “political Islam” and seeking to push conservative and regressive changes rather than groups that are simply Islamic, it would indeed be a misunderstanding on my part. If you re-read my comment, I was careful to say that I was interpreting Islamophobia.
I think more careful language is warranted in the OP’s post, personally. I’m no expert on this distinction between “Political Islam” and “Islam” by using the term “Islamist”, but I’d guess neither are a lot of other leftists. I would be worried, though I do not know with any certainty, for our Islam-practicing comrades to come into this space and feel attacked by that post, not because they believe in the regressive ideas described, but because they might not understand the distinction that is attempting to be made.
To reiterate, though, I may just be more ignorant than most on this particular topic, in which case I think anyone could safely disregard my thoughts.
I’m sorry if my post seemed anti-Islam, I made the assumption people would understand the difference between Islamic and Islamist, I will add a note so people do not misunderstand.
The word ‘Islamist’ only has the meaning of political Islam and is incredibly commonly used, even in liberal media. The idea that ‘not a lot of other leftists’ would know it is… kinda baffling, given how much actually obscure terminology we bandy about casually.
BlackLotus’ posts do seem ignorant rather than malicious (giving the benefit of the doubt and presuming that it’s not a case of concern trolling)