What we are seeing in Egypt is counter-revolution pure and simple, military hardliners who are going to be friendly with Israel and the US, and are committing gross human rights abuse.
Western backed counter-revolution is going to be sweeping back across the Middle East; do not be distracted by the words of the West, watch the deeds. It will of course be in the name of secularism. There is an important correlation between what is happening in Turkey and Egypt. I made myself unpopular when I pointed out what the media did not tell you, that behind the tiny minority of doe-eyed greens in the vanguard of the Istanbul movement, stood the massed phalanxes of kemalist nationalism, a very ugly beast. “Secularism” was the cry there too.
Actually, Arsalan’s increasingly unhinged ranting sounds like a mirror image of White Aryan Nation propaganda. Have I touched a nerve?
Remember, now, that this is a white Englishman, who originally was Jewish and (according to a previous post he provided on this public blog) whose name was Edward Goldberg, telling me that I have an inferiority complex, that I am an Uncle Tom, a white supremacist and a racist and that the white ‘races’ are really, really bad. And who seems almost to relish the repeated use of the word, “nigger”.
Meanwhile, he approvingly quotes the Engish comedian, Paul Merton – another white man and, by Edward’s own definition, a “Kaffir” (perhaps, then, a ‘House Kaffir’?).
But doesn’t he know that Islam has absolutely nothing to do with ‘race’, that such concepts are alien to Islam? Doesn’t he also know that South African racists used to call Africans, “Kaffirs”?
And plagiarising from Kilroy? Things may be desperate, what with the “we’re all in it togther” economic situation (the word, economics does not appear in Edward’s mythopoeic lexicon, it seems) but in the name of [insert your chosen deity], they’re not that desperate!
Some therapy, perhaps…? Arthur Janov? RD Laing?
Being a white supremicist is what I am accusing you of being.
All you have said, is nothing more that what they say about other races.
My point is, you don’t have to be white to be a white supremicist. you are proof colour is no bar to be one.
Islam is what was revealed to the Prophet pbh. That is what we seek to rule by.
The reason why I call you a racist, is what you have said.
Things like, “wanting to rule by Islam is bad because some Arab guys might go to call girls in the UK”.
But at the same time, the many UK men that go to call girls or call boys for that matter has absolutly nothing to do with secularism does it?
It doesn’t mean secularism is bad does it?
You are just a racist. If your racist people in the your secular south Africa choose to call Black people Kaffirs, that is their business. But this has to be the most moronic comment you have ever made in regards to the evils of what you call Islam-ism.
Your previous comments have been about ruling by Islam is bad, because, and then you list a few of the 2 billion Muslims that have done some bad things.
That was moronic, and in the same level as people who hate blacks and justify it by listing bad things some blacks have done.
But your last comment, waw, so what is it? ISlam is to blame for racist white south Africans using racist words for blacks?
Confusing Islam and Muslim is silly, the way you say islam is bad for the action of some Muslims.
But now our religion is to blame for actions of non-Muslims against other non-Muslims.
What planet do you live on?
I don’t think even you can beat that when it comes to moronic justifications of the coup against an elected government by the army?
When it comes to what you have done and what I have done. Yes, I think 5 books,that can’t feed anyone, can’t house any one, can’t advance society or civilisation. Doesn’t count as an invention, does it? I mean, I’m sure who you call Islamist have written some books?
So as Paul Merton said to Kilroy, “what have you done other then your boring chat show”, I haven’t read your books, but if they are anything like your comments here, “what have you done other then write 5 boring books”.
Fiction doesn’t count as inventions.
What I have done is my business. I’m not getting in to a manhood comparing contest with you.
The point I am making isn’t about your books. It is about your hypocrisy.
And you are full of it.
And my attack on your racism. Your white supremicist racism. Isn’t an attack on whites in anyway. Only a moron, a complete and utter moron would see it as such.
You just repeat every racist says when defending themselves and their racism.
Don’t Israeli Jews accuse people of being antisemites when they accuse Zionists of racism?
Don’t KKK and Aryan Nation accuse people of being racist against whites when they attack their racism.
And you do the same.
Let me spell it out for you in words you might understand.
Being against white supremecy doesn’t mean you are against white people.
Believing in Islam doesn’t mean you hate Non-Muslims.
It should be obvious to anyone. This concept seems to have gone above your head.
Paul Merton is white, to the best of my knowledge I don’t think he has converted to Islam recently. But that makes no difference. I like him because he is very funny.
What I am against is your racist reasons for supporting the coup.
your white supremecist reasons for supporting the coup.
And being against your white supremecist words doesn’t mean I am anti white, anti non-Muslim, it just means I am against your racism.
And be honest, they have largely been racist reasons haven’t they. They haven’t really been about the policies of MB ecconomic or otherwise. It has mainly been, “Islamist, bad, evil, look look what they have done some pakis have killed other pakis, some arabs visit call girls in london, Islamist bad, some non-Muslim south African whites use racist words against non muslim black people, islamists bad”.
You have repeated what you just said many times. And it makes you sound like a zionists. Isn’t that what they always repeat when anyone tells them not to kill palestinian babies?
“Islamist bad, look what they did in Iran, bad evil, look what the Germans did to us, Islamist bad”.
Just like Zionists use the example of actions Palestinians have nothing to do with to scream “Islamists bad”, you use actions the MD have nothing to do with.
Okay, Arsalan, thank you for your contribution.
Perhaps now the adults would like to resume their discussion?
Painful isn’t it when people disagree with you?
Arsalan, you do your argument a disservice by jumping off the deep end. Please keep your language more temperate.
I think you are not picking up the nuances of what Suhayl is saying, and for what it’s worth, I agree with him broadly. He has differentiated between Islam and Islamism (or whatever you wish to call it, if this name is not useful for you) and is not mounting an attack on Islam (the religion) at all. But several of us here have made the point that theocratic Islamic governance (possibly becoming a one-party system governed by Sharia courts) is not Islam, it is Islamist (or, again, whatever name you prefer).
It is this second thing we are disagreeing with.
I think you understood the point about sustaining an environment in which creativity and inventiveness may flourish, things that are widely agreed as being good for society in general. It is not an atheist point to suggest that moderate non-Islamist governance (which the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt may have turned out to be) generally provides a better culture in which artists, scientists, intellectuals and writers may practice their craft.
It will surprise you to learn that I moderately approve of Tehran making use of nuclear power to generate electricity. I am opposed to their developing nuclear weapons, but I agree with the US State Department that there is no evidence of widespread activity of this kind, despite the propaganda that tells us otherwise. Now, I am opposed to nuclear power in general for environmental reasons, but it is not up the the Americans to tell the Iranians how they may generate electricity. I would thoroughly approve of a genuine grass-roots environmental movement in Iran that campaigns against nuclear power, though I am not sure what rights they would have to effectively demonstrate against it.
Suhayl’s point about Arab’s visiting call girls is hardly central to his argument, but I think he was pointing out religious hypocrisy, not stating a view on prostitution. After all, if you voted for a religious government that offered proscriptive views on the exercise of sexuality, and heavy penalties were instituted for infractions, you’d be pretty annoyed if the rich and powerful could flout such legislation with impunity, wouldn’t you?
If you could drop the KKK/Aryan/Nazi/Kilroy stuff, it would be much appreciated. You’ve clearly no idea how much it makes you sound deranged, regardless of how honestly you hold the views that you do. For what it is worth, I do think you hold your views honestly, and they are better discussed on the Internet than not at all.
If you are willing to give us some non-identifying detail about your background, I think that would be useful. Were you previously Jewish? That is of interest, genuinely. I was brought up in the Church of England, but the white Zimbabwean minister we had was an ogre, and still for me exemplifies religious authoritarianism. My experience of religion as a child was stultifying and lobotomising, though I know some adults now who speak well of it. I think if religion cannot be rejected it should be enjoyed quietly, without an organisation – it is the latter that pupports to offer solidarity, and ends up exerting political and financial control over the vulnerable.
This is quite boring, Arsalan. You seem to have no ability properly to discourse with people in an adult fashion. You find yourself indulged here, perhaps, but I have withheld that unfortunate customary indulgence, just for a moment, and now everyone can see how you have reacted. This dynamic occurs every time you face any resistance to the specific fanatical ideology through which you seem to have sought personal redemption. One senses a certain increasing desperation in your pronouncements. Your contributions are embarassing – I am embarassed for you, Arsalan. You are making a fool of yourself. For your own sake, please try to relax and put things in perspective. This is just a blog and I am not your personal enemy. I wish you no ill.
Fedup:
This shifts more blame for your evasiveness right back to me, again, and isn’t help if you genuinely wish to rebuild the bridges you’ve been blowing up. You’ve given me a right run-around, and frankly I am exhausted by it.
If you now choose to reveal yourself as non-religious, then I am mystified why you have been strongly and repeatedly arguing for Islamic, or Islamist, governance. But, you write a great deal and don’t say very much; I’ve read thousands of words from you over the years, literally, and I still have pretty much no idea what you stand for. If you want to write a piece that explains that, perhaps with some non-identifying detail about your background, then hey, that’d be very cool.
Amongst many things, the “good Jew” dilemma (linked earlier in this thread). I commend the challenge to Arsalan too – I am not the angry right-winger you think I am.
There is no internet equivalent of a loud whistle, so I have to invent a one:
WWWWWWWWIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEE
Stop this nonsense at once, fighting each other without respecting the Dojo and observing Bushido
1- Stop calling each other names, and simply being prats.
2- Start debating on the substance of the issue.
3- Regardless of the disagreements, you are at least prepared to talk to each other, so why stop doing good, when we all live in a world of shit?
Here endeth the lecture.
Arsalan, It is perfectly understandable that whilst most Muslims living under the rule of various tossers who are propped up by the neocolonial expansionists. The poor Muslims have not enough potable water to drink, or adequate shelter to live in, and don’t have enough food to sustain them. To find Suhayl is asking “Tell me what the Muslims have invented?” is an annoying to say the list, and a bloody red rag to the proverbial bull to say the most.
Suhayl, you find whilst you are getting it in the neck from the cryptoracist surrounding you, then to be subjected to some of the uncharitable labels you get from other perceived minorities, gets you pissed off, and you retaliate. This self breeding reaction arrives at a destructive resonance, and both of you walk away without having achieved anything, and only wasted your time.
I hope you both wish to move forward and learn from the debate whilst affecting each other positively.
So far we have agreed that Political Islam should be referred to, instead of “Islam-ism”. Further, given that there could be a chasm in your life experiences, don’t take it for granted that the other understands what you mean.
In fact I have experienced this particular point, that has been dominating my transactions with Jon. He believed I am religious whilst in reality I am not, and based on that we were debating on parallel tracks. I am sure Arsalan would have adduced that I am not religious but Jon did not. (now Arsalan would start that he thought so too!!). Hence try and explain in more descriptive or use more mundane language, remember you are not seeing each other to decode the semiotics (facial expressions, hand gestures, etc).
Slap on the butts of both opponents and let the bout begin.
No kicking the fucking ref for any excuse either!
I’m sorry, Fedup. I have been attempting to stick to the issues. I have critised political ideologies. I have engaged with you and Jemand in a civil tone. Withut any justification, I have been called horrendous and utterly inappropriate names by Arsalan. When, finaly, I make it clear that this needs to stop, you decide to intervene.
Also, I did not agree that the term, ‘Islamism’ should not be used.
Finally, I am as puzzled as Jon by your position. You certainly seem to me pretty consistently to have been mostly to be arguing from a religious-political, specifically an Islamic religious-political, position.
The simple fact is for any life form to evolve and progress. The life form ought to be living in an environment that is most conducive to its growth, to further develop on the path towards evolving to further adapt to its surrounds.
With that preface, the current Muslim societies have been subject of the Western plutocrats aggression with a view to exploitation for a considerable period, further these plutocrats have managed to push and hold these Muslim societies in the orbits of dependencies. The resultant of these combined elements of control, is societies that are effectively consumers and have developed little in the way of self sustaining constructs.
The exogenous control measures have also yielded the appointment of various charge hands, masquerading as the local leaders, who effectively are catering for the interests of their masters the Western plutocrats.
In the interest of human progress, and working towards an assured future for humanity, we need to provide an environment that will allow the development of the societies that are evidently suffering from arrested development syndrome. To this end there should exist; a moratorium on aggression, and a period of none intervention ought to be aimed at. Further, to ensure the latter, it would serve the cause of the progress well to rely on the local traditions and imperatives to kick-start the process.
Islam is a spring board that can help to achieve local autonomy, and due to its comprehensive instruction sets can allow the gradual development of these societies along the path of modernity. The process has worked in the past and surprisingly succeeded with great results. To expect the Afghans to start modernising and stop growing opium crop, we need to let them develop at their own pace and with reliance on their own imperatives.
Before we go any further, has this clarified the context or are you still mystified?
“Fedup, are you the same person who posts under, ‘Passerby’? Or are you two different people? It’s just a little confusing sometimes. ‘Fedup’ and ‘Passerby’ seem to possess very similar voices.”
Did you get an answer to that, Suhayl?
Arsalan, you have shocked me with your nastiness.
In essence, Fedup, it seems clear to me that your intervention is a riposte to that of Jon (4:24pm).
I question why you may be asserting that you do not hold Islamist (or Islamic Fundamentalist, or what you might prefer to call ‘Politically Islamic’) views when actually, the majority of your input into this blog has suggested precisely the opposite. I wonder whether you post also as Passerby and Cryptonym – I may be quite wrong about this, but the voices of these three handles seem interchangeable, their politica positions indistinguishable. Might this be to suggest that there are three contributors who hold your views, rather than just one?
There’s no law against this; it simply is an observation.
Now, for you to play ‘honest broker’ in these contexts, I think is problematic.
In the face of the tsunami of anti-Muslim propaganda, the underdogs need every bit of help, and every man of conscience at the pump, won’t you agree?
This pejorative term is aiming to portray and validate political Islam as some kind of a deviant and retrogressive ideology.
Why do you think the current anti-Muslim wave of sentiments is sewn, propagated and maintained? You are grown up enough to know that “democracy”, apple-pie and all the rest of the brand names are solely for the benefit of maintaining the current status quo, that has yielded the total fuck-up (the latest of which is the “banking crisis”) we have arrived at.
‘Political Islam could be lots of things – as I suggested, it could be liberation theology, or the Edhi health work which I admire. ‘Islamism’ is an effective and useful term refers to the Salafi/Wahabi/Deobandi postmodern hybrid (or its Shia counterpart) and in my view, these hybrids are indeed ‘deviant and retrogressive ideologies’.
Your attempt to conflate Islam with Islamism is typical and it is what people like Arsalan and other so-called fundamentalists try to achieve.
It is an obfuscation, an apologetics, an attempt to hoodwink (largely) gullible liberals.
No, the Islamists are not the underdogs. They have the support of (tactically) NATO and strategically, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Pakistan and billions of petrodollars.
This really amuses me, a cheap Cluedo thrill moment, to what end?
What purpose does it serve?
There seems to be an obsessive compulsive preoccupation with my pseudo identity. Suhayl you used to wax lyrical that I was something “steel” or some other undesirable character that you wanted to out me as. However for some unknown reason the figure three has been a constant in these “outings”, ever thought why is that?
The three is not important, Fedup. But you refusing to answer the question is. Steelback, Apostate and Freeborn are not around, so you needn’t bother deflecting the question by dragging them up.
Are Fedup and Passerby one person? Because they undoubtedly speak with the same voice.
I rest my case. Despite the fact that you know the differences! Yet you go along with the virulent campaign of hatred directed against all Muslims who believe that their political constructs should be an organic construct. A construct that relates to their values, imperatives, and traditions. Throwing the baby, bath water, window and so forth, seems to be so fashionable.
Salafi/Wahabi/Deobandi are just that: Salafi/Wahabi/Deobandi! To depict these movements and bundle them together with political Islam and shove these into a singular label of “Islam-ism”, is a mendacious attempt to discount the aspirations of millions of people. Through portraying their ideals as retrogressive and deviant. Communism was the last nemesis that the deviant plutocracies managed to conjure as the evil incarnate, now next nemesis/”deviant ideology” is to be found in “Islam-ism”.
Further in the absence of a delineation of Salafi-ism/Wahhabi-ism/Deobandi-ism, a direct result of “lazy intellectualism”, that is reliant on general ignorance will yield any questions/objections. Those Muslim intellectuals intent on progressing the cause of political Islam are stifled. Also stifled is the wider Muslim world, that finds itself under further attacks as yet in the planning.
This of course is a win, win situation for the reactionaries on both side of the divide, the deviant plutocracies, and the deviant retrogressive tribal chieftains bent on perpetuating their feudal rule.
Indeed there is an attempt in hoodwinking, but who is hoodwinking whom is the question.
Free speech does not imply a right to dialogue.
I think the term “Islamism” might have been coined as a portmanteau word for “Islamic activism” wherein muslims are agitate for the infusion of Islamic observance and customs in political processes and laws.
It’s appearance as a perjorative is probably due to the negative context of discussions by non-muslims of Islam related matters. There’s not much that is positive in the news these days, is there?
If the meaning of the term is understood and agreed, then it is valid and useful.
Fedup, if you want to encourage this reasonable suspicion that you are one and the same person as Passerby, then you will be treated as one and the same. Confusion solved.
It’s got nothing to do with Cluedo, or thrills, Fedup, as you well know. Sockpuppets are used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists.
I take it you can’t answer the question – or at least, you can’t answer it truthfully.
Nope, FedUp. It is the postmodern hybrid – as I said, “hybrid” of the ‘political Islam’ that came out of – was propagated by – Saudi Arabia and its fusion with pre-existing forms with which I have major political disagreement. That is Islamism and it has nothing to do with tradition. It is not in the slightest traditional. “The virulent campaign of hatred directed against all Muslims” is something quite distinct and is something for which I have equal opprobrium.
This statement is flawed. The Salafi-ism/Wahhabi-ism/Deobandi-ism are no post modernist hybrids. These are adaptations of Islam for the benefit of the feudal practices prevalent in the particular geographical regions, with a distinctive demographies. The adaptation to be classified as a hybrid strictly is not true, because the adaptation of Islam is a perversion of the religion itself and use of hybrid dignifies such a construct, in effect helping perpetuation of the deviances from the tenets of the religion.
The simple fact that Wahhabi-ism is the brand of choice for Saudi despots, ought to be telling. However the historical narrative deficits, have obfuscated the actualities which in turn have resulted in further suppression of the exploited Saudi citizens who are further marginalised by the current confusion over the direction of the political Islam. This promoted as “conventional wisdom” in the wider world, as well as within the Muslim world.
In any case fact that an old age pensioner is attacked* and stabbed to death by a Ukrainian that so far has not been named and his religion or affiliation as yet are remaining a mystery, somehow is not enough to stop the venom that is flowing so freely to further marginalise and suppress the Muslims and their political aspirations.
The simple fact that suppression of political Islam is the desired outcome for the reactionaries on both sides of the divide somehow going missing. On goes the circular debate reiterating the prejudices and preconceived notions. The neo liberal dogma of beating the “deviancies” out of the “Islam-ists” is carried on unabated; all in the name of challenging the “extremists”. The game of civilising (bombing the shit out of them) the “savages” is replayed with a differing set of victims.
* Mohammed Saleem was murdered in April on his way home after attending prayers in his mosque. His murders were caught after a belated investigation to a bombing of a mosque in June.
I said what I said because arrgance like this needs to be answered in that way:
Suhayl Saadi
17 Jul, 2013 – 12:56 pm
Absolutist, supremacist, exclusivist, oppressive, lobotomising, postmodern… [these are the polite adjectives]
_ _ _
The above are insults he uses against people he disagrees with. When I call him a racist. I do not mean it as an insult. I mean it as a statement of fact.
Statments like “Saudi Arabia: Ask the call girls of Knightsbridge. ” are not statments about idiology or politics. They are racist statements. I am not going to shy away from stating it. Everything he said from start to finnish is nothing but racial generalisations, racial attacks.
When it comes to the whole issue. About the coup in Egypt. And the arguments the secularists use. “Oh the Egyptians might have voted 73%, in one election for them, and more then 80% in another for them, but they just all changed their minds”, this is nothing but racial arrogance. How stupied do these people think Egyptians are? this is nothing but a colonialists mindset that lesser races are unable to rule themselves.
When I call him, and some other people racist. That as directed at them as individuals.
When he said what he did, 17 Jul, 2013 – 12:56 pm,
It was directed at those who do not share his sense of secularism. It wasn’t directed at one person or one group who did one thing that he disagrees with. It was directed at the vast majority of Muslims as shown by the elections.
I don’t call that a difference of politics. I call that racism and white supremicy, and I do not shy away from saying that just because he has brown skin.
If i held him by another set of values from what i hold other people such as the BNP who say pretty much the same thing, I’d call myself a racist.
last post was meant for Dreoilin
Jon
20 Jul, 2013 – 4:24 pm
I know you agree with him. And I have said what I said to him to you as well. Don’t feel left out.
I have said I don’t recognise the word “Islamism” and I don’t recognise the fact that you or he consider it to be one party.
Why?
Because the Brotherhood, didn’t arrest all the other parties when they won the election.
What was one party was the regime they placed. What resulted in arrest was the regime that replaced it. They are the ones that arrested the brotherhood after the elections.
I think by Islamist, you and he mean Muslims that are not secularists. Muslims that don’t restrict themselves to just obey the parts of the quran that deal with their individual lives but also things that deal with the state?
Am I right?
Well then it is Islam you are against.
Islam doesn’t restrict itself to just advise us on our individual lives.
It is nonsense, to say it isn’t Islam to obey that parts of Islam that talk about state, but it is this new word we have just invented called Islamism.
Sorry, I don;t buy it.
If you were talking about a differences you had with a government, a state, or a political party. That would not have been an issue. I’m sure I have my own differences with them too. Instead it was, “Islamist” and he brought examples of people in Muslim countries doing bad things, completely unconnected with the brotherhood, and often unconnected with politics, like his call girl example.
I call that racism, not political debate.
Sorry I will not state any details about my back ground. I want to discuse the issue at hand, not my background.
The backgrounds of the people debating here makes no difference to how valid thier arguments are. To say it does, is racism.
Suhayl Saadi
20 Jul, 2013 – 4:30 pm
When I called you a racist. It wasn’t an insult. It wasn’t ill will to you. It was just meant as a statment of fact.
I have meant everyword I stated as a statement of fact. None were meant as insults. I appologise if they were taken as such.
Jon
20 Jul, 2013 – 4:39 pm
Jews are not Zionists and Zionists are not Jews.
fedup
20 Jul, 2013 – 4:40 pm
You are right, I knew you are not religious.
Why?
Because that is what you stated.
Unlike Jon, I don’t believe you support Islamic government. I believe you are someone that believes people have better ways of ruling themselves. But how they rule themselves is their business, not yourown?
Am I right?
When it comes to things like water and food. Well the secular governments have had about the last 80 years to sort that stuff out. Islam also has a solution to distributing water. Secularist might refuse to apply it because it is a solution given in our religious texts. But the secularists haven’t been able to solve these problems with their secularism have they?
And I don’t believe secularists even have the will to solve it. What non-Muslims don’t know about the Muslim world and the secularists inside it. Is secularists are a tiny westernised Minority, who think themselves superior than the average person. They have no concerns about how the average person, eats drinks or sleeps, because secularists have access to imported lexuries. They aren’t intrested in water, they get imported bottled water. These secular dictators and the people that support them have ignored the poor ever since they were given power by the colonialists. It was people like the brotherhood that feed the people for all those years. I trust them more to feed the people when they are in government then the secularists, because they have been doing it for the last 80 years while being an illigal organisation.
Suhayl Saadi
20 Jul, 2013 – 5:07 pm
Don’t try acting all innocent.
We can all scrole up and read what you said if we want a taste of insults.
You act like a Zionists. They bomb cities to bits and cry, and pretend to be an innocent victim when a child throws a rick back.
How is that any different from you using words like this:
Suhayl Saadi
17 Jul, 2013 – 12:56 pm
Absolutist, supremacist, exclusivist, oppressive, lobotomising, postmodern… [these are the polite adjectives]
_____________ _
And then crying, pretending to be a victim when anyone says anything back?
get over yourself.
This is that attitude of the secularists who have just taken over egypt. For decades they ruled as a single party, imposing secularism by force. Wripping the hijabs of heads and the beards off faces at the point of a gun. And then there was an election, and they did a coup to get back in power with the excuse. “They are Islamist, look they dont share power, they might stop us dressing the way we want”. When the secularists themselves ruled for decades, unelected on their own. And now after the coup, they do so again. arresting all who disagree with them.
Suhayl Saadi
20 Jul, 2013 – 7:33 pm
Your attemp to say that it isn’t is dishonest coming from someone who should know better.
You know as well as I do, that both the Quran and the Sunnah talk of things that relate to the state as well as the individual.
To stop using the word Islam for anything but the individual parts of Islam and to make up a new word for the taking Islam as a whole is very dishonest.
Islamism is just a word racists made up to feel good about themselves.
What it really means, is Islam practiced in a way the white masters disagree with.
The colonialists want to pick and choose what we can follow of Islam, and following anything on top of that is Islamism.
Your attempt to mash togeather Deobandi/wahabi/Salafi with political Islam is a case of “Lets fool whitey”.
You assume the Non-Muslims here are so ignorant they will accept what you say without further thought because you have brown skin so what you say about Islam must be true.
You mash togeather political and non Political, you mash togeather different groups in different regions that have no connection with each other. You do all this in the way Jim crow America refused to allow blacks on the front of buses using the example of what some African tribes do in Africa.
That is why I call you a racist. It was never meant as an insult.