Advertisement

Muslimism versus Islamism: On the Triad of Politics, Religion, and Everyday Life

  • Neslihan Cevik

Abstract

The current chapter develops a more precise and analytical definition of Muslimism. I conceptualize this new form by identifying its key attitudes in three macro realms, which also constitute the “three ds” of Islam in classical Islamic doctrine, namely, din (religion), dunya (everyday life/lifestyle), and dawla (politics).1 This survey of Muslimist temperaments provides us with an ideal cognitive schema or a discursive map.

Keywords

European Union Muslim Woman Islamic State Reality Orientation Islamic Identity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Mohammed Arkoun, Rethinking Islam: Common Questions, Uncommon Answers (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994), 16Google Scholar
  2. Mohammed Arkoun, “Locating Civil Society in Islamic Contexts,” in Civil Society in the Muslim World: Contemporary Perspectives, ed. A. Sajoo (New York: Martin’s Press, 2000), 43Google Scholar
  3. Carl L. Brown, Religion and State: The Muslim Approach to Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    For a discussion on the use of informal units in case studies, see John Gerring, “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” American Political Science Review 98, no. 2 (2004): 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    For this view, see Nazih Ayubi, Political Islam: Religion and Politics in the Arab World (London: Routledge, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mohammed Ayoob, The Many Faces of Political Islam: Religion and Politics in the Muslim World (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008)Google Scholar
  7. Robert W. Hefner, “Public Islam and the Problem of Democratization,” Islam: Critical Concepts in Sociology 2 (2003): 166–190.Google Scholar
  8. Abd Allah Ahmad An-Na’im, Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari’a (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Abd Allah Ahmad An-Na’im, “Shari’a in the Secular State: A Paradox of Separation and Conflation,” in The Law Applied Contextualizing the Islamic Shari’a, ed. Peri Bearman, Wolfhart Heinrichs, and Bernard G. Weiss (London: I.B. Tauris, 2008).Google Scholar
  10. 6.
    Robert Wuthnow, Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987)Google Scholar
  11. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger; an Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York: Praeger, 1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1973)Google Scholar
  13. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City, NY: Penguin, 1967).Google Scholar
  14. John W. Meyer, John Boli, and George M. Thomas, “Ontology and Rationalization in the Western Cultural Account,” in Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society and the Individual, ed. G. M. Thomas, J. W. Meyer, F. O. Ramirez, and J. Boli (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987), 12–27.Google Scholar
  15. 11.
    The formal empirical work included 36 in-depth interviews complemented further by 2 focus-group meetings (each composed of 10 participants), documentary data (e.g., yearly/monthly publications), and ethnographic observations. For discussions about the advantages of qualitative research and small-N studies for achieving a depth of knowledge as held by a set of individuals and the contingencies that play upon them—especially in examination of a newly emerging phenomena, Muslimism, also marked by tension and ongoing negotiations and changes—see Gerring, “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good For?” and Alexander George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005).Google Scholar
  16. 12.
    In “targeted sampling,” a researcher maps a target population and recruits a pre-specified number of subjects at sites identified by ethnographic mapping. John Watters and Patrick Biernacki, “Targeted Sampling: Options and Considerations for the Study of Hidden Populations,” Social Problems 36 (1989): 416–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 13.
    Robert Weiss, Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies (New York: Free Press, 1994), 25.Google Scholar
  18. 14.
    For a similar observation, see Bahattin Aksit, Ayse Serdar, and Bahar Tabakoglu, “Islami Egilimli Sivil Toplum Kuruluslari,” in Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Dusunce: Islamcilik, ed. Y. Aktay (Istanbul: Iletisim Yayinlari, 2004), 664–681.Google Scholar
  19. 15.
    For studies that have differentiated the JDP from Islamist parties, pointing to the new style of Islamic politics that it has articulated, see especially, Hakan Yavuz, The Emergence of a New Turkey: Islam, Democracy and the AK Party (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2006)Google Scholar
  20. William Hale and Ergun Ozbudun, Islamism, Democracy, and Liberalism in Turkey: The Case of the AKP (London: Routledge, 2010).Google Scholar
  21. Sennur Özdemir, MUSIAD: Anadolu Sermayesinin Dönüsümü ve Türk Modernlesmesinin Derinlesmesi (Ankara: Vadi, 2006)Google Scholar
  22. F. Keyman and B. Koyuncu Globalization, “Alternative Modernities and the Political Economy of Turkey,” Review of International Political Economy 12, no. 1 (2005): 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jenny White, “The End of Islamism? Turkey’s Muslimhood Model,” in Remaking Muslim Politics: Pluralism, Contestation, Democratization, ed. Robert Hefner (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004)Google Scholar
  24. Ayse Kadioglu, “Civil Society, Islam and Democracy in Turkey: A Study of Three Islamic NonGovernmental Organizations,” The Muslim World, 95, no. 1 (2005): 23–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gottfired Plagemann, “Türkiye’de insan Haklari Örgütleri: Farkli Kültürel Çevreler,” in Türkiye’de Sivil Toplum ve Milliyetçilik, ed. Stefanos Yerasimos, Gunter Seufert, and Nuray Mert (Istanbul: Iletisim, 2003), 371Google Scholar
  26. Barbara Pusch, “Turkiye’de Islamci ve Sunni-Muhafazakar Kadin Sivil Toplum. Kuruluslarinin Yukselisi,” in Türkiye’de Sivil Toplum ve Milliyetçilik, ed. Stefanos Yerasimos, Gunter Seufert, and Nuray Mert (Istanbul: Iletisim, 2003).Google Scholar
  27. 17.
    Karen Vorhoff, “Türkiye’de Isadami Dernekleri: Islevsel dayanisma, Kültürel Farklilik Ve devlet Arasinda,” in Türkiye’de Sivil Toplum ve Milliyetçilik, ed. Stefanos Yerasimos, Gunter Seufert, and Nuray Mert (Istanbul: Iletisim, 2003), 326.Google Scholar
  28. 19.
    Bora Kanra, Islam, Democracy and Dialogue in Turkey: Deliberating in Divided Societies (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=476377.Google Scholar
  29. 21.
    Adem Çaylak, “Autocratic or Democratic? A Critical Approach to Civil Society Movements in Turkey,” Journal of Economic and Social Research 10, no. 1 (2008): 115–151Google Scholar
  30. 22.
    Neil Hicks, “Does Islamist Human Rights Activism Offer a Remedy to the Crisis of Human Rights Implementation in the Middle East?” Human Rights Quarterly 24 (2002): 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 25.
    For other studies providing us with a general understanding of Islamist orientations toward the three ds, see Ellis Goldberg, “Smashing Idols and the State: The Protestant Ethic and Egyptian Sunni Radicalism,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 33, no. 1 (1991): 3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mansoor Moaddel, Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and Fundamentalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005)Google Scholar
  33. Graham E. Fuller, The Future of Political Islam (New York: Palgrave, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mehdi Mozaffari, “What Is Islamism? History and Definition of a Concept,” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 8, no. 1 (2007): 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 27.
    In drawing out the Islamist design of the three ds, I especially benefit from Bayramoglu’s empirical study (2007) composed of 40 in-depth and 50 thematic interviews carried out in 8 cities in Turkey. Based on inferential data, he identifies four types of religious discourse on the axis of secularism and religion: hard-core laic wing, moderate laic-wing, moderate Islamic wing, and hard-core Islamic wing. The latest category is consistent with I term “political Islamism” in the current book. Ali Bayramoglu, Algilar ve zihniyet yapilari: dindarlik-laiklik ekseni: “çagdaslik hurafe kaldirmaz:” demokratiklesme sürecinde din-dar ve laikler (Karaköy, Istanbul: TESEV, 2006).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Neslihan Cevik 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neslihan Cevik

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations