Abstract
The events of the beginning of this century has shown the resistance and the diversity of Islamism. According to Bobby S. Sayyid, Islamism is a discourse that attempts to centre Islam within the political order. Islamism can range from the assertion of a Muslim subjectivity to full-blooded attempt to reconstruct society on Islamic principles, and Islamists are people who use the language of Islamic metaphors to think through their political destinies, and those who see in Islam their political future. Thus, Islamism is not an essence, but a discursive construction of reality. Consequently, understanding Islamism means necessary taking account of the ideologies, programmes and practices of the various groups, which claim that Islam has a comprehensive view of the world. Islamism is what Islamists make and say about it. That is why the concept of Islamism can only be understood through an examination of the differences and similarities between its main groups. Thus, the purpose of this essay is to compare the political theories, social support and politics of the two of the major radical Islamic movements: the Pakistani Jamaat-i-Islami (the Jamaat), and the Iranian Islamic Revolution (the IR). The Jamaat and the IR explained the need for the setting of an Islamic state and proposed to lead this process with popular support. Consequently, these movements encompass abstract explanations and positive actions, which are inter-related in such a manner that one cannot be comprehended without the other. That is why we will contrast the theoretical logics, and the socio-political dynamics of the Jamaat and the Iranian Revolution.
