Why Islamists and progressives have so much in common

At a time when political language is routinely muddled, there can be few topics more confused than that of Islam and Islamism. The failure to make a clear distinction between the two – an error across the political spectrum – makes it harder to understand the true dynamics of Islamist movements, and particularly their relationship with the left. Indeed, those ‘progressives’ who align themselves with Islamists are often described as ‘useful idiots’ or cowardly ‘appeasers’. But when Islamism is properly understood, it becomes clearer why the left has such an affinity with it.

Although the term is often used in public debate, the precise meaning of Islamism is typically unclear. It is not synonymous with more observant or fundamentalist Muslims. Its true character was well summarised by Bassam Tibi, a Syrian-German political scientist, who said: ‘Islamism is about political order, not faith.’ Nonetheless, it is not mere politics, but religionised politics, that is at its core. Essentially, Islamism is best seen as a form of politics in a religious wrapping.

Islamism first emerged against the backdrop of anti-colonial struggles in the wake of the First World War. But unlike the radical nationalist movements that initially gained power in the Arab world, like that led by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, Islamists did not aspire to embrace the benefits of modernity for those living in poorer parts of the world. On the contrary, Islamist movements were implacably hostile to cultural modernity, democracy and liberal values. They were also extremely sceptical of the nation state, if not outright hostile to it. Instead, they aspired to some kind of nizam Islami, or new Islamic order, transcending national boundaries in the name of a shared theocratic vision.

As Tim Black has noted on spiked, the first Islamist movement was the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928. Many of today’s Islamist groups, including Hamas, are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood. The first Islamist movement in the Indian sub-continent was Jamaat-i-Islami, founded in 1941. It too has many contemporary offshoots, including Islamist organisations in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Iran and Turkey both have Islamist governments, and Islamist movements are also prevalent in north Africa. Many of these groups have affiliated networks which operate within Muslim communities in the West, particularly the UK.

Although Islamism is routinely described as ‘medieval’, many key Islamist doctrines were developed in the 20th century, not the 7th. The idea of Sharia as an immutable Islamic legal system is a prime example. Although a concept of Sharia law did develop in the Middle Ages, it was seen at the time as being of human origin, and so open to dispute. In contrast, for Islamists, Sharia is a divinely ordained political order. It cannot, from their perspective, be modified or secularised.

Violent anti-Semitism as a central element of Islamism is also, despite appearances, a modern development. It is true that Islam has often adopted discriminatory practices against Jews. The Ottoman Empire’s branding of Jews and Christians as dhimmis, subjecting them to an inferior legal status and extra taxes, is a well-known example. But modern Islamism goes a lot further. It holds that Jews are a force for Satanic evil, which must be purged from the world.

Hamas’s founding covenant from 1988 makes this all too clear. Its Jew hate is not influenced by the Koran, but by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious anti-Semitic forgery originating from Tsarist Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Among other things, Hamas argues that Jews ‘were behind the First World War, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources’.

‘They obtained the Balfour Declaration [and] formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind the Second World War, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.’

Clearly, none of these events or institutions could have been described in the Koran or the Hadith. The ideas in the passage were adopted from the racial thinking embodied in modern European anti-Semitism.

The violent language of Hamas reflects the ascent of a particular strain of Islamism, namely jihad. The jihadis are those Islamists who are openly willing to engage in violence. These people can be distinguished from what are sometimes called institutional or ‘participationist Islamists’ – those who support the use of violence, but do not practise it themselves.

Islamists typically operate covertly, within front organisations, including student organisations and charities. They are hard to identify with certainty as they deliberately try to blend in with broader Muslim communities. Islamists typically see themselves as true Muslims and take a derisive view of any co-religionists who do not share their politics.

Given this, it is hardly a surprise that Islamism and progressivism have such an affinity for one another. They have an awful lot in common: an aversion to modernity, hostility to democracy, cynicism towards the nation state and intolerance towards alternative views. Despite differences on some questions – most notably in relation to gay rights – the overlap is considerable.

There is also a particular affinity between mainstream identity politics and Westernised Muslims. As French political scientist Olivier Roy has noted, many Muslims in the West do not identify with the nations in which they live. For some of them, Islam is not so much a religion but a form of identity, one that precludes any attachment to a secular country. Such individuals are often attracted to Islamist ideas and networks. In effect, they embody a particular variant of the anti-nationhood trend that dominates identity politics in the West.

The progressive indulgence of Islamism is not primarily driven by cowardice or a propensity for appeasement – although that is certainly a factor. Neither is it solely a case of, as the hackneyed phrase goes, ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’. It is because progressives and Islamists agree on so much that they march arm in arm together.

The fundamental problem is not only that an extreme strain of Islam is corrupting an otherwise healthy body politic in the West. It is also that Islamism and progressivism share so much in common. The modern Western left offers fertile ground for Islamism to flourish on.

Daniel Ben-Ami is an author and journalist. He runs Radicalism of Fools, a website dedicated to rethinking anti-Semitism.