When and how did modern Islamism start to gain traction?

They mean the religion of Islam treated as a triumphalist, militaristic, terroristic, expansionist, totalitarian political ideology bent on world conquest, i.e. Islam.

Many Salafis aren't Islamists for that reason. Islamic fundamentalism is not the same thing as Islamism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Taymiyyah

>Islamic fundamentalism

As an Evangelical Christian this pisses me off, almost as much as when people confuse Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism and call me Fundamentalist. (Pro tip: Fundamentalists call themselves that to distinguish themselves from Evangelicals.) The word "fundamentalism" has no meaning outside of American Baptist and Protestant circles.

>Whose ass did you pull that out of
The Muslim Brotherhood's, in fact.

In what way is Ibn Taymiyyah an Islamist, and not just a Muslim theologian.

True, but that's the sort of shortcoming we can't easily avoid when trying to discuss a subject in English. You're right, Islamic fundamentalists have little in common with Fundamentalism either literally or figuratively.

When the Brits equiped them and allowed them to conquer a land filled with oil.

Ibn Taymiyyah wasn't that influental outside the Hanbali school until the Saudis conquered the Arabian peninsular

Wahhabism during and after World War 1

When you had explosives small enough to conceal under clothing.

Around the 1960s. There are three main points:
First, Israel, at the time primarily run by Russian Marxists, wanted to remain neutral instead of being Soviet toadies. This resulted in the Soviet governments readopting the tsarist antisemitic policies, regurgitating Nazi propaganda under the guise of "anti-zionism" and "anti-cosmopolitanism", stuff like the "Doctors Plot" and so on. Eventually this culminated in the KGB declaring "terrorism should become our main weapon" and creating terrorist groups like the PLO and sponsoring Carlos the Jackal and Qaddafi's Libya.

Second, the seizure of the grand mosque in Saudi Arabia by ultra-conservative terrorists. It's a bit complicated but basically in the aftermath the House of Saud decided that to cure religious extremism they needed more religion and conservatism.

Thirdly, the Iranian revolution. Mainly it was the same as the Saudis but with a different sect of Islam, a popular backlash by religious conservatives due to the government adopting more liberal policies.

really took off after the Saudi-American alliance got tight during the Cold War.

8/10 post...

you forgot the Afghan War and the CIA going all in trying to out terrorist the KGB.

oh and the Iraq Invasion was the cherry on top...

I'm gonna be boring and say Ottoman Empire's fall and the partitioning of the Arab world by Britain and France, Arabs hate Turks but Turks are Muslim and Muslims hate each other but they hate the West even more, which is why the Saudi royal family is essentially forced to fund Wahhabist all around them, like Trotyskyism but for Sunni Islam

The US only supported the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The Taliban was supported by Pakistan and the Saudis, and now Russia as of six months ago.

Didn't the US try to iron out a pipeline deal with the Taliban?

This brilliant article is long but well worth the read. An insight into the colonial disaster of the middle east after ww1 and the rise of Islamist attitudes

theguardian.com/news/2017/feb/16/trump-dangerous-delusions-islam-muslims-liberalism

Watch the Adam Curtis documentaries they are pretty good

>the rise of Islamist attitudes
that is literally bullshit, influential philosophers and such from the 18th to the 19th century always potrayed Islam as a violent and savage religion who propogated the idea of violence on those who are classified as 'kaffir or infidel'

For a non western perspective here is what Swami Vivekanada said of islam:

Now, the Muslims are the crudest in this respect, and the most sectarian. Their watch-word is: there is one God (Allah), and Mohammed is His Prophet. Everything beyond that not only is bad, but must be destroyed forthwith, at a moment’s notice, every man or woman who does not exactly believe in that must be killed; everything that does not belong to this worship must be immediately broken; every book that teaches anything else must be burnt. From the Pacific to the Atlantic, for five hundred years blood ran all over the world. That is Mohammedanism.

The more selfish a man, the more immoral he is. And so also with the race. That race which is bound down to itself has been the most cruel and the most wicked in the whole world. There has not been a religion that has clung to this dualism more than that founded by the Prophet of Arabia, and there has not been a religion, which has shed so much blood and been so cruel to other men. In the Koran there is the doctrine that a man who does not believe these teachings should be killed, it is a mercy to kill him! And the surest way to get to heaven, where there are beautiful houris and all sorts of sense enjoyments, is by killing these unbelievers. Think of the bloodshed there has been in consequence of such beliefs!

Part 2
Why religions should claim that they are not bound to abide by the standpoint of reason, no one knows. If one does not take the standard of reason, there cannot be any true judgment, even in the case of religions. One religion may ordain something very hideous. For instance, the Mohammedan religion allows Mohammedans to kill all who are not of their religion. It is clearly stated in the Koran, Kill the infidels if they do not become Mohammedans. They must be put to fire and sword. Now if we tell a Mohammedan that this is wrong, he will naturally ask, "How do you know that? How do you know it is not good? My book says it is."

Or lets take a look at Pandit Lekh Ram, a Hindu who vehemently opposed Mirza ghulam Ahmed, a crazy cunt who thought he was the Mahdi antichrist and founded Ahamdiyya in 1880s. The Pandit said.
All educated people start looking down upon the forcible conversions and even started objecting to their very basis. Since then some naturalist Mohammadis [Muslims] are trying, rather opposing falsehood and accepting the truth, to prove unnecessarily and wrongly that Islam never indulged in Jihad and the people were never converted to Islam forcibly. Neither any temples were demolished nor were ever cows slaughtered in the temples. Women and children belonging to other religious sects were never forcibly converted to Islam nor did they ever commit any sexual acts with them as could have been done with the slave-males and females both.

Pandit Lekh Ram was murdered by an assassin because Mirza Ghulam Ahmed 'had a prophecy his most vehement opponents death' The pandit was stabbed to death in his own home 1897.

The Prophecy goes "If within six years from today February 20, 1893, this man does not meet with punishment from God, which is unusual in its poignancy and tragedy and which impresses all and sundry with the fear of the Lord, then let everybody think that I am not from God." "And God gave me the tidings that I will witness a day of Eid, and this day will be close to the Eid."

The Pandit was stabbed to death a day before Eid ul-fitr in 1897 by a islamic assailaint.

These people incite violence on everyone not believing their nonsense and this naive western liberalism's ideal of the religion is falsified, muslims will radicalize regardless, just look at their history, if everyone around them were subservient and liable to their frequent raids and pillaging forays there was no wealth or foundation for prosperity for much of their holdings.

And if you are still doubtful, lets see what Gandhi said about islam.

The failure of Arab nationalism and Arab Socialism with the closing of the Cold War, the Sykes–Picot Agreement generally fucking/JUSTing everything up, etc. Basically a bunch of pissed off retards with a religion that says pissed off retards get 70 virgins and eternal heaven if they blow themselves up and the people that made them pissed off retards in the first place.

Part 4

Though, in my opinion, non violence has a predominant place in the Quran, the thirteen hundred years of imperialistic expansion has made the Muslims fighters as a body. They are therefore aggressive. Bullying is the natural excrescence of an aggressive spirit. The Hindu has an ages old civilization. He is essentially non violent. His civilization has passed through the experiences that the two recent ones are still passing through. If Hinduism was ever imperialistic in the modern sense of the term, it has outlived its imperialism and has either deliberately or as a matter of course given it up. Predominance of the non violent spirit has restricted the use of arms to a small minority which must always be subordinate to a civil power highly spiritual, learned and selfless. The Hindus as a body are therefore not equipped for fighting. But not having retained their spiritual training, they have forgotten the use of an effective substitute for arms and not knowing their use nor having an aptitude for them, they have become docile to the point of timidity and cowardice. This vice is therefore a natural excrescence of gentleness.-Mahatma Gandhi

Now lets look at earlier critical views Jewish philosopher, Ibn Kammuna, in the Examination of the Three Faiths said
That is why, to this day we never see anyone converting to Islam unless in terror, or in quest of power, or to avoid heavy taxation, or to escape humiliation, or if taken prisoner, or because of infatuation with a Muslim woman, or for some similar reason. Nor do we see a respected, wealthy, and pious non-Muslim well versed in both his faith and that of Islam, going over to the Islamic faith without some of the aforementioned or similar motives.

They are just savages who need to be converted to other religions or utterly exterminated. They are a plague on this world.

part 5
Jawaharlal Nehru himself said in the book Discovery of India:

The Muslims who came to India from outside brought no new technique or political or economic structure. In spite of religious belief in the brotherhood of Islam, they were class bound and feudal in outlook.

round the end of the ottoman empire when britan and france took over Palestine syria and jorden but it really gained traction with the creation of the Taliban and the us destabilizing the middle east allowing anti west radical groups to take power

Bosnian war

>and France

FUCK OFF

YOU singlehandedly patronized the Arab World, you're also the one who received petroleum and empowered shitslam.

>a crazy cunt

I can read Bangla and I'm pretty sure he doesn't use the word 'cunt'.