Slop.

534 readers

233 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip

founded 7 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

At least the ableism is misspelled (hexbear.net)

submitted 12 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

This person is a horrible, orientalizing racist, but "Islamism" in this context is basically a shorthand for "Islamic theocracy," isn't not just a confused way of saying "Muslim."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

So ISIS, for example, are extremely Islamist, and the Taliban are as well. That is much less true of the overall factions opposing Israel in relation to the genocide, though they will inevitably have members and segments who are straightforwardly Islamist (as you have in most militant movements with mostly-very-religious membership).

("Christianism" is sometimes used in the corresponding way, though it has other terms like christo-fascism or Catholicism to refer to it by depending on the specifics).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

To set out my case further, I rest my argument on four main contentions:

The colonial history of the words ‘pan-Islamism’ and ‘Islamism’ is inextricably tied to the notion of a threat that requires a security response.

The contemporary popular use of the word ‘Islamism’ is nearly always tied to militancy, extremism and violence, and so cannot be rescued from within academia. The evocation of the word presents images of violence. Unlike words such as ‘Muslim’, which may now be regarded in the West as evoking similar fears, ‘Islamism’ operates as a hydra, where it is simultaneously violent and meaningless in its operation. Violent, in the impact it can have, meaningless in the amorphous nature of its use.

That within the framing of the global War on Terror, the accusation of ‘Islamism’ in itself draws heightened suspicion and surveillance, leading to many forms of violence enacted by the state. Similar to the framing of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Muslim, ‘Islamism’ carries a significant degree of academic cover that operates outside of its ubiquitous significance – academic use cannot rescue the way the word has been politically instrumentalised.

It presupposes that only certain forms of faith-based political expression are ‘Islamist’. I make this point to suggest that quietist expressions of faith within the political realm, are no less political in their maintenance of political authority – indeed these positions are often used to uphold that authority.

From: The case against "Islamism"

So yes, it is a confused way of saying "Muslim" and is deliberately used by colonizers to 'other' the politics outside of the Imperial Core. It's the same as when people say "I'm only against illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants." Except it's accepted among the "left" because of ISIS being reactionary and 9/11.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I don't see what the actual argument is. Either you want religious law to be the law of the land or you don't. Either you aren't secularist or you are. Are you upset about "Islamism" being the word instead of "theocrat"?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Are you upset about "Islamism" being the word instead of "theocrat"?

Yes lol. They won't use "Muslim" because they'd rightly be called out as Islamophobic. They won't use "theocratic" because it applies to zionists and Christians. So they made up a new word to other people. You have whiteys pearl clutching over "jihadists," when "jihad" is just the Arabic word for "struggle."

This shit is why Palestinians are being killed while liberals blame Hamas, instead of blaming Isreal. Or US adventurism for the rise of ISIS and the Taliban. Or European colonialism for poverty throughout the Middle East.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 hours ago

The issue is that's not really an argument against Islamism being a valid term, it's just saying that it gets weaponized by Islamophobes.

I also think it's strange to say that "jihad" is not ideologically distinct from the generic concept of "struggle" because the word can be translated to "struggle". That's not how language works either, it's a specific term with theological meaning. It would likewise be totally valid to use, to pick an arbitrary, the Mandarin word for "struggle" to connote the meaning of the term as Mao used it (which is not entirely different from jihad but clearly distinct from the generic term "struggle").

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

The closest to a Catholic specific version of Christian Nationalism is Integralism, and that has luckily had basically no influence in America. Whenever American Catholics have had power and wished to wield a theocratic cudgel they have tended to go for protestant dominion theology.

"Christianism" is sometimes used in the corresponding way

I have literally never heard that. Not once. Christian theocracy has a million words for it and is subdivided into its various tendencies in a way we don't do for Islamic theocracy, as a result we don't tend to use words like "Christianism".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

You can see people use the term that way if you put it into a search engine. I was just noting that specific word because the person I was responding to proposed it as a hypothetical nonsense word while they were misunderstanding what Islamism was.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

You kinda don't, most of the things you do get about "Christianism" as an ideology is about how we don't use it in the same way we use "Islamism", and also like a single blog that mentions it. People don't really say "Christianism", they say something else.