The Idea
This idea presents Islamists as political actors who employ religion in mobilization and in justifying violence, rather than as mere holders of conservative piety. The point here is that religious language becomes an instrument in the struggle for power and influence. The sacred thus becomes part of a political strategy, not a purely spiritual end.
Concise Formulation
Islamist fundamentalists: practice: political violence
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This idea occupies an important polemical position in the book’s argument, because it distinguishes between religion as a faith experience and its use in the political sphere. This distinction allows the text to explain the source of danger without conflating it with the essence of religion. From here, the idea appears as part of a critique of mechanisms of instrumentalization, not of faith itself.
Why It Matters
This idea reveals a decisive aspect of Arkoun’s thought, namely his refusal to reduce religion to the discourse of power or violence. It opens the reader to the difference between religious reference and its transformation into an instrument of mobilization. This difference is essential for understanding many of his analyses of the conflict between knowledge and domination.
Brief Evidence
the fundamentalists/islamists… practice violence and use religion for mobilization the fundamentalists/islamists… practice violence
Reading Questions
- What is the difference between piety as a personal practice and the political instrumentalization of religion?
- How does this distinction change the way Islamist discourse is read?
Documentation Level
High: the claim appears in a clear location in the book’s material.