Making Sense of Islam vs. Islamism

In the 19th century, European orientalists used the term Islamism to describe the study of Islam or the religion itself, much like Buddhism or Hinduism.7 It was a neutral academic label, not a political one. By the early 20th century, Western scholars and administrators started using Islamism to describe what they saw as a politicized form of Islam, essentially groups seeking to reestablish the Caliphate.

This was the first step in a deliberate redefinition: casting Islam’s political ambitions as a modern, aberrant strain rather than an intrinsic feature. By the mid-20th century, with the rise of figures like Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamism was fully recast as a distinct ideology, a supposed perversion of Islam that sought to impose Sharia and establish Islamic governance. This redefinition peaked after 9/11, when the West’s fear of being labeled Islamophobic reached fever pitch. Media and politicians leaned hard into the Islam-versus-Islamism narrative, insisting that Islamism was a political ideology divorced from the “spiritual” essence of Islam.

I.

For nearly two decades, I lived as a Muslim. I never even heard the term Islamism until I began interacting with Western academics and media. To a Muslim living by the Qur’an and Sunnah, it is meaningless. No serious Islamic scholar teaches that there is a separate category of Muslim called an Islamist. There is only the Muslim who obeys Allah and His Messenger, and the Muslim who fails to do so.

In other words, the so-called Islamist is simply the Muslim who takes the religion seriously, who doesn’t pick and choose, who applies Islam to every part of life.

A nominal Christian can reject biblical commands on sexuality, the exclusivity of Christ, or the authority of Scripture and still be recognized by other Christians as part of the faith. A Jew can reject the divine origin of the Torah, or the authority of the Talmud, and still be embraced in Jewish community. There is theological space for pluralism.