ABSTRACT
In most academic disciplines ranging from Islamic studies to political science, scholars often fail to appreciate the differences between political movements that were formed in 20th century in the name of Islam. A prime example is that in the literature Mehdi Bāzargān of Iran, Abu-Bakr al-Baghdādi of ISIS and adherents of the Taliban are all referred to as “Islamists.” Problematizing a lack of clarity concerning the academic usage of the concept “Islamism” and its reduction to a violent and fundamentalist longing for state capture to uphold sharia law, this chapter argues that the ambiguity of Islamism results from lack of differentiation between various expressions of political Islam. This ambiguity may be addressed by referring to Oliver Roy’s classic distinction between Islamism, Salafism, and Usūlism. Once historically and theologically situated, it becomes evident the three expressions of political Islam, particularly, Islamism and jihadi Salafism share little in terms of point of origin, although they never remained completely isolated. In fact, through dialectical exchange they produce new discourses. After making a case for the differences between Islamism, Salafism, and Usūlism, this chapter calls for the recognition of a fourth expression of political Islam, one that differentiates between Islamism as a movement and Islamism as a state ideology. This fourth expression, called neo-Islamism, is the statist version of Islamism serving both the modern state apparatus and the capitalist economy.
