Shariati: Between Political Islam and Islamism

Political Islam and Islamism are sometimes used as synonymous terms. However, by scrutinizing these two terms, they can be employed to distinguish between two very different currents in the contemporary Islamic world.

Although political Islam is a form of modern identity-seeking, as an interpretive and ijtihadi approach it has deep historical roots, and in this sense it is not an entirely modern phenomenon. Political Islam is the creed of all Muslims who believe, to varying degrees, that in Islam there still lies a path to emancipation in certain spheres of Muslims' social life. In other words, in the view of Muslims who believe in political Islam, Islam is not confined to a purely private and personal relationship with God and solely for otherworldly salvation; rather, in Islam there are also solutions for some (and not all) political issues and problems of the collective life of Muslims (and not all human beings) in the modern era. To put it another way, although the idea of political Islam summarily and generally entails a belief in the emancipatory potential of Islam, it does not necessitate understanding Islam as the sole solution to all of humanity's problems for eternity. That is, in the idea of political Islam, the perfection and comprehensiveness of Islam is limited only to specific domains of the needs, issues, and desires of Muslims' lives (and not all of Adam's children). Proponents of political Islam consider Islam a stronger rival or a preferable alternative only for certain aspects of some non-Islamic schools, ideologies, and ways of life, not as a comprehensive, all-encompassing, and perfect substitute for all realms of modern science, technology, philosophy, and politics, and all non-Islamic ways of life. Moreover, political Islam is not necessarily aggressive. Political Islam also does not necessarily seek the theoretical modeling or practical establishment of an entirely Islamic society or an entirely Islamic government. Political Islam is neither exclusivist nor self-exceptionalist. Hence, it can submit to the rules of pluralistic and democratic coexistence with non-Muslims, as well as with Muslims who do not believe in political Islam. For its adherents, political Islam is a path to emancipation, in certain contexts, alongside other paths. Among the greatest Iranian pioneers, heralds, and activists of political Islam in the past century, the names of Seyyed Musa Sadr, the Sahabis, father and son, and Mehdi Bazargan stand out.

The story of Islamism, however, is entirely different. Islamism is an ideology and, like all ideologies, one of the products of the modern era. For Islamists, Islam is the sole solution to all issues and problems and the only answer to all of humanity's questions, from the beginning to the end of life, in all times, epochs, and contexts; as Sayyid Qutb put it, “al-Islam huwa al-hall” (Islam is the solution). Such an expectation of Islam necessitates a maximalist understanding of Islam's comprehensiveness and perfection. That is, it claims that Islam is so comprehensive of all spheres of human life, and in each sphere so perfect, that its teachings not only can (and must) replace all fields of science, ethics, and technology, but can (and must) guide human actions in all individual and collective arenas, from politics, economics, war, and peace to recreation, leisure, home, and family. Islamism is aggressive and seeks to formulate a comprehensive theory for all areas of individual and collective life and to establish a society and a political and social system on an Islamic scale. Islamism, in addition to being exclusivist and self-exceptionalist, is intensely prone to totalitarianism. For this reason, it can neither come to terms with democratic values, nor, a fortiori, can it even entertain a diluted version of the dream of pluralism. In practice, depending on environmental exigencies, Islamism can turn out to be very violent or less violent. But in any case, in principle, it has no qualms about exercising violence, nor about justifying or even sanctifying it. In Iran, the heavy coins of Islamism have fortunately not been minted, and such imported currencies that Islamist money-changers have offered to the market have not yet found respectable prosperity and circulation among the general devout public. Unlike political Islam, which has prominent and full-fledged representatives in Iran, the Iranian spokespersons of Islamism are incomplete; that is, they are not full-fledged Islamists and often have clear eclecticism with political Islam, as well as ideas borrowed from socialism, Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism. In other words, Iranian Islamists often place Islamist claims in patched-up frames or crooked molds of non-Islamist ideas, as if, God forbid, they have not yet made up their minds wholeheartedly. People like Navvab Safavi and his companions, followers, and like-minded individuals up to the present day belong to this category. In the views of Mr. Mesbah Yazdi over the past twenty years, as well as in the works of the associates of the Qom Academy of Islamic Sciences, there are also prominent streaks of Islamism.

The key to understanding the enigma of the late Shariati's personality and views can be sought, among other things, in this characteristic of his: that he was in constant hesitation and vacillation between Islamism and political Islam. He himself did not get the chance, and after him, the enthusiasts, disseminators, and interpreters of his works did not want to, or have not yet been able to, dispel that enigmatic hesitation and vacillation. This is why, forty years after his passing, both Islamists and proponents of political Islam simultaneously both praise him and fear him.

.

---

.

PDF file of this article

.

---

.

Shariati: Between Political Islam and Islamism

Author: Mohammad Mehdi Mojahedi

.

---

.