ABSTRACT

In the recent period, there have been tectonic shifts in world power propelled by how faith features more prominently in politics, the collapsing economy of Western governments, and thriving markets in some Eastern states. This chapter argues that, because of these shifts, it is time to see Islamist political interlocutors, and deal with them, very differently. The financial meltdown, a collapsing mortgage market in the United States,

and record revenue from oil in petroleum-exporting states are combining to bring about radical transformations in economic power. These market shifts are made more complicated by the shifting political forces after the attacks on the World Trade Towers as Al Qaeda launched itself so graphically into world politics and everything that has followed from that important event. Islamist political groups have been and continue to make major gains. In

spite of major efforts to eliminate them, the Taliban have re-emerged with a vengeance in Afghanistan. Some political actors and security advisors in and out of the country even argue that it is necessary to engage them in the political process. Hizbullah are seen in many circles-in and out of Lebanon-as the moral, political, and military victors over Israel since their 2006 conflict. Hamas won legislative elections and, after international attempts to isolate them, staged a coup of sorts, which now leaves them reigning over the Gaza Strip. For the first time, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has eighty seats in a parliament of over 400 seats, and is arguably slated to win free and fair elections in the country. Algeria’s “North African Al Qaeda” is repeatedly

vying for gruesome limelight through violent messages and terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden is supposedly rooted in Waziristan, along the Afghan border, but “cells” operate throughout Europe. “Home-grown terrorism” is now as popular in academic and policy think-tank discussions as “democracy” was in the 1990s. Controversial Danish cartoonists and Dutch MPs (with cartoons and a film, respectively, on Islam) feature in nightly talk shows on televisions in different countries. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 created shockwaves in political circles

around the Western world, the ripples of which can still be felt in speeches made by the current President Ahmedinejad, and in the ongoing debates about the country’s nuclear capacity. A legislative decision held that the government’s revoking of the ban on the veil in Turkey was illegitimate. This decision almost decided the future of the country’s government and governing party despite strong electoral success in August 2007. In a country struggling to hang on to its staunchly secular identity, these Islamic forces in government are causing considerable consternation in many circles. All this has many politicians and students of politics around the world

rather worried. After the events of September 11, 2001, one of the most oftrepeated questions in the US was “why do they hate us [sic]”? Many years later and after many political developments, those on the right of the Western political spectrum are speculating as to how far back this “hate” goes (all the way back to the Crusades?) and when will the US troops come home from Iraq and Afghanistan? At the same time, students of Western politics in countries as diverse as Argentina and Pakistan are concerned about the backlash generated by US foreign policy. The unpublicized question is: do all these developments mean more terrorism is here to stay? Ten to twenty years ago, the confluence of religion and mainstream poli-

tical activism was deemed by many scholars and politicians to be, at best, a “lack of awareness of secular realities.” Today, religion and politics are the topics of many graduate courses in almost all universities, and they appear in the headlines of major books and publications. Religion and politics, the sacred and the political, and several other variations of the same theme, are definitely “in.”4 This trend is surely for good reasons. With the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union came a near eclipse of the grand political meta-narratives of communism and socialism. Virtually left alone as the victor, liberalism eventually became entangled with globalization. Globalization itself is littered with hypocritical and morally corrupt political regimes, serious global economic disparities, global warming and debilitating effects on the environment, armed civil conflicts, and with transnational acts of terrorism as icing on the cake. Ringing in the collective global ears are the mantras of charismatic religious personas and the ethos of religious-political parties working simultaneously, it would seem, on the mind (providing new mobilizing ideologies) and the body (serving many people’s economic welfare in the form of education, health services, and even pension plans in some countries). Whether it is the Christian coalition of the US playing a strong

role in the election and governance decisions of the Bush administration, the Hindu BJP Party in India ruling for many years and now in opposition, or the ongoing influence of Iranian religious clerics in the political decision making, the fact is that religion and politics are today’s most well-known bedfellows. When Islamism, or political Islam, as we know it today, emerged strongly

in the 1980s in the Arab world, it grabbed Western headlines with events such as the assassination of the Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat, various kidnappings, bombings, and armed conflict in Lebanon, Egypt, and Algeria, to name but a few. Almost since the 1980s then, political Islam was perceived in the Western public consciousness as synonymous with violence. This impression has almost solidified the Western collective consciousness by unfolding events in the Arab world together with ongoing bombings and attacks elsewhere (i.e., the Paris subway bombings, US embassy attacks in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, World Trade Center in New York, and the Pentagon in Washington, followed by Bali, Madrid, London, Glasgow, and so on). Needless to say, the conflict between Hamas and Fateh, as it unfolded in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt), has done nothing to enhance both the impression of terror and the fear of it. Today, spokespersons of political Islam, or Islamism, find themselves, at

best, on the defensive about their diversity and their aspirations and, at worst, cornered and fighting.5 This is a dangerous state of affairs; it is problematic to have a popular political movement misunderstood and pushed into a corner at any time. It is also unwise to subsume a diverse political movement under one heading, such as “terrorism/terrorists,” which dismisses, in one fell stroke, its varied protagonists from opportunities for representation and negotiation at any time. But it is dangerous to do all of this at a time when many within, and even outside, these movements feel they have legitimate grievances, and believe they are fighting for a just cause. It is also a downright waste when some members of these movements are potentially critical interlocutors, at a moment when all of us are seeking a socio-political meta-narrative that can inspire and move us forward in contemporary times. This chapter will be divided into three parts. First, political Islam will be

defined and described through what I term the Islamist continuum. I will argue that Islamist movements fall on a spectrum characterized by a nominal unity of purpose (i.e., a more just/Islamic governance), but a significant difference in methods. Second, I will discuss the fact that Islamist movements are given an unparalleled boost because of both the decline in secular movements and “blowback” from US foreign policy-the latter seen as being realized and endorsed by illegitimate Arab governments. And last, the chapter will discuss how it is that religion is not only an occurrence in the Muslim world, but part and parcel of an ideological echo in both Eastern and Western hemispheres. As such, I will conclude by arguing that certain Islamist tendencies should not be seen as enemies, but rather as potentially powerful ideological allies in a struggle against spiraling violent confrontations.