Islam / Islamism

.

.

The contemporary distinction between Islam and Islamism relies on a semantic postulate that crumbles the moment it is confronted with the reality of scriptural sources. To the uninitiated observer, Islamism appears as a monstrous outgrowth—a radical deviation from a purely spiritual faith. Yet, this separation is a modern invention, a tool of verbal diplomacy that conceals a historical and theological truth: Islam is, in essence, a global legal and political structure that does not conceive of a dissociation between temple and State.

Islamic dogma defines itself as a totalizing system, summarized by the formula Din, Dunya wa Dawla (Religion, World, and State). Unlike Christianity, which was born out of an initial separation from Roman power, Islam constituted itself from its earliest years as a conquering and legislative entity. To claim that the will to apply Sharia is a "political ideology" distinct from religion is a profound contradiction, as Sharia is the beating heart of the religion itself.

This semantic illusion serves as a smokescreen for a harsher reality: Islam does not merely offer a path to the salvation of the soul, but a hegemonic code of conduct. The concept of "validity for all times and all places" locks down any attempt at real reform. If the texts advocating for world submission and the subjugation of non-Muslims are considered the uncreated and eternal word of God, then the Islamist is not an extremist, but a consistent traditionalist who rejects the hypocrisy of modernity.

The use of the term "Islamism" allows for the evacuation of the dogma's responsibility for the violence committed in its name. By creating this distinct entity, one can blame "ideology" while sanctifying "religion." It is a defense mechanism that bypasses a necessary debate on foundational texts. Nevertheless, radical groups are merely reactivating the medieval software of conquest, using the Sira (biography of the prophet) and the narratives of Jihad as a current user manual, legitimized by fourteen centuries of Sunni jurisprudence.

The most blatant proof of this continuity lies in the silence of major clerical institutions. When an institution such as Al-Azhar refuses to declare members of ISIS as disbelievers (kafir), it is merely applying classical Islamic law: a crime, however barbaric, does not expel a believer from Islam as long as they observe the rituals. Paradoxically, this same jurisprudence maintains the death penalty for the apostate or the one who abandons prayer. This value system places loyalty to the group and submission to dogma far above universal morality or respect for human life.

To speak of a "religion of peace" while obscuring the verses of the sword and the historical practice of Jihad is a form of intellectual Taqiyya (dissimulation), aimed at making the dogma acceptable in a world governed by human rights. Jihad has never been, historically, a mere spiritual struggle of the soul; it was the engine of uninterrupted imperial expansion, establishing dhimmi status for conquered peoples. This status of a second-class citizen—humiliated and subjected to a tax—is inscribed in the DNA of Muslim law.

Ultimately, Islamism is Islam in its active and political form, stripped of the compromises that modern social life imposes on individuals. Muslims who live their faith in a peaceful and private manner often do so despite the political dogma, not because of it. They practice a form of Islam "neutralized" by the surrounding culture, but the roots of the text remain unchanged, ready to be harvested by anyone wishing to restore the power of the Ummah.

It is time to face the truth: the problem is not a "wrong interpretation," but the persistence of a medieval software of domination that no one dares to officially repeal. As long as the Muslim world does not declare its political and martial laws obsolete, the distinction between Islam and Islamism will remain a lie of convenience. The truth is that the dogma carries within it the seeds of the oppression it claims to condemn today.

.