Authentic Salafism, Jihadism, and Political Islam in Contemporary Global Dynamics
Abstract: This contribution explores the differences between Salafism, jihadism, and political Islam, highlighting the relevance of these distinctions for the fields of social sciences and counterterrorism studies. Situated within the theoretical framework of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jamāʿa (the People of the Sunnah and the Community), authentic Salafism is grounded in adherence to the Qur’an and the Sunnah according to the understanding of the earliest generations of Muslims (al-Salaf al-Ṣāliḥ). It is characterized by its rejection of indiscriminate violence, takfīr (the excommunication of other Muslims), and political subversion. The article examines the centrality of individual transformation as the foundation of social change, the rejection of rebellion and insurrection, and the preference for dialogue with legitimate authorities as a factor of social and political stability. It further investigates the normative function of the distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims as a mechanism for regulating coexistence and managing religious plurality. Finally, the analysis discusses the implications of these distinctions within contemporary European contexts, with particular attention to Italy, where processes of securitization and media representations significantly influence public perceptions of Islam and policies aimed at preventing radicalization.
Keywords: #Salafism #Jihadism #PoliticalIslam #Counterterrorism #Radicalization #Securitization #Takfir #Khawarij #SociologyOfReligion #GlobalSecurity #SocialStability #ReligiousCoexistence #ElhemBeddouda #EthicaSocietas #EthicaSocietasJournal #ScientificJournal #HumanSciences #SocialSciences #ethicasocietasupli
Elhem Beddouda, professional Educator holding a Bachelor’s Degree in Educational Sciences and Training Processes from the University of Parma, with a thesis entitled “Islam and the Educational Function: Perspectives on Religious Assistance in Prisons.” She is currently enrolled in the Master’s Degree programme “Global Studies for Sustainable Local and International Development and Cooperation” at the same university.
The Problem of Oversimplification in Public Discourse on Islam
Contemporary public debate on Islam is often marked by an interpretive tension arising from the difficulty of distinguishing between religious, political, and security-related phenomena that are, in reality, profoundly different. A significant portion of media and political discourse tends to reduce the plurality of Islamic traditions to a linear and almost automatic sequence in which religious conservatism, Salafism, radicalization, extremism, and terrorism appear as successive stages of the same process.
Such a representation is sociologically fragile and politically risky because it transforms a complex historical, doctrinal, and social reality into a security-centered interpretive framework, in which the primary concern is no longer understanding the internal dynamics of religious phenomena but rather identifying potential indicators of dangerousness. The result is a tendency toward generalizations that can negatively affect both the quality of public debate and the effectiveness of counterterrorism policies.
Studies on Salafism have long demonstrated that it cannot be described as a single, homogeneous movement. Within it coexist quietist orientations, primarily focused on purifying religious practice and obeying established authority; political orientations, concerned with participation in or transformation of institutional orders; and jihadist orientations, which legitimize violence as a tool of religious and political struggle (Wiktorowicz, 2006). Although this tripartite framework does not exhaust the complexity of the phenomenon, it helps avoid the most serious analytical mistake: confusing the doctrinal rigidity of a religious current with adherence to organized violence.
From this perspective, the present article proposes an analytical distinction between normative or quietist Salafism, jihadism, and political Islam, considering them distinct phenomena in terms of genealogy, internal logic, and social function. While acknowledging areas of overlap, discursive contamination, and ambiguities that may emerge in individual radicalization trajectories, it rejects the simplistic equation according to which every form of conservative Islamic religiosity constitutes a precursor to terrorism.
Normative Salafism as a Regulatory Form of Religiosity
In its own religious self-understanding, Salafism presents itself as a return to the Qur’an and the Sunnah according to the understanding of the earliest Muslim generations, the salaf al-salih (the pious predecessors). It generally locates itself within the Sunni tradition of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama‘a, claiming doctrinal continuity based on the rejection of religious innovation, the centrality of monotheism, and the pursuit of ritual and moral practices perceived as faithful to the origins of Islam (Haykel, 2009; Commins, 2006).
From a social-scientific perspective, this self-definition should not be accepted as a theological criterion of truth but can be analyzed as a form of normative religiosity: a system of beliefs, practices, and rules aimed at stabilizing religious identity through strong emphasis on internal coherence, behavioral discipline, predictability of conduct, and the reduction of interpretive ambiguity.
The rejection of bid‘a—religious innovation considered illegitimate—may be interpreted sociologically as a mechanism of communal stabilization. It reduces the scope for doctrinal transformation, reinforces continuity of practice, and provides adherents with a relatively stable moral grammar in contexts marked by pluralism, migration, modernization, secularization, and crises of traditional religious authority.
In its quietist or normative dimension, Salafism tends to prioritize the reform of the believer, religious education, separation from practices regarded as deviant, and the construction of a recognizable moral identity, without necessarily translating into a revolutionary political project or legitimization of violence. This does not mean that such orientations are free from tensions regarding pluralism, gender equality, or liberal coexistence. It does mean, however, that their analysis must be distinguished from that of jihadism, since doctrinal rigidity and political violence are not synonymous categories.
Social Change and Individual Reformism
A central element of quietist Salafism concerns its conception of social change, which is generally understood not as a revolutionary transformation of institutions but as a gradual process of moral reform affecting individuals and communities. Collective change is seen as emerging from the correction of beliefs, practices, and personal conduct.
The Qur’anic verse stating that God does not change the condition of a people until they change what is within themselves is frequently invoked to support a vision of change centered on individual ethical responsibility and internal transformation before external political action (Qur’an 13:11). Sociologically, this can be interpreted as a non-revolutionary theory of social change in which the stability of the collective order is preserved through gradual reform of individuals rather than through conflictual institutional rupture.
This aspect is particularly important because it helps distinguish quietist Salafism from both political Islam and jihadism. Political Islam tends to regard religion as the foundation of institutional organization and collective mobilization. Jihadism, by contrast, views violence as a necessary means for destroying an order considered impious or illegitimate. Quietist Salafism, while often socially conservative and at times strongly separatist, generally emphasizes obedience to authority, rejection of rebellion, and prevention of fitna—internal discord within the community.
This logic should not be idealized, as it may foster forms of communal closure, social separation, and resistance to cultural integration. Nevertheless, it must be analyzed accurately, since public policies that conflate religious quietism with jihadism risk indiscriminately targeting non-violent environments, thereby weakening institutional trust and reducing the capacity to identify genuine processes of radicalization.
Jihadism and the Violent Rupture of Religious and Political Order
Contemporary jihadism represents a qualitative rupture from normative Salafism because it does not merely advocate a rigorist form of religiosity. Rather, it constructs a totalizing worldview in which violence becomes a legitimate instrument of purification, political transformation, and destruction of the existing order. The defining characteristic of jihadism is not simply adherence to a conservative interpretation of Islam but the combination of apocalyptic ideology, delegitimization of religious and political authority, extensive use of takfir, and justification of violence against both external and internal enemies (Kepel, 2002; Hegghammer, 2010).
The practice of takfir—accusing other Muslims of unbelief—constitutes one of the most dangerous mechanisms of jihadist logic because it symbolically expels individuals from the community of believers and transforms them into legitimate targets. This mechanism reflects a radical simplification of the social world, divided between authentic believers and absolute enemies. As a consequence, internal Islamic pluralism, legal mediation, traditional religious authorities, and political institutions are dismissed as forms of compromise, deviation, or apostasy.
The frequently cited comparison between contemporary jihadism and the Khawarij should be approached with caution. Historically, the Khawarij were an early Islamic movement known for interpretive rigidity and intra-Muslim violence. Sociologically, certain similarities can be observed in their logic of exclusion, extensive use of religious excommunication, and delegitimization of Muslims deemed deviant. However, such parallels should be understood as typological analogies rather than evidence of direct historical continuity, since contemporary jihadism emerged from modern geopolitical, media-driven, postcolonial, and transnational conditions fundamentally different from those of the early Islamic period.
Research on radicalization has shown that adherence to jihadism can rarely be explained by a single religious variable. Rather, it emerges from the interaction of individual biographies, real or perceived marginalization, identity crises, social networks, propaganda, geopolitical conflicts, exposure to simplified narratives, and militant socialization processes (Borum, 2011; Neumann, 2013; Horgan, 2014). Reducing the phenomenon to religious doctrine alone obscures the ways in which violent ideology exploits personal and social fractures, transforming vulnerability, resentment, and the search for meaning into a willingness to engage in extremist action.
ESSENTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abou El Fadl, K. (2005). The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. New York, NY: HarperOne.
Borum, R. (2011). Radicalization into violent extremism I: A review of social science theories. Journal of Strategic Security, 4(4), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.4.4.1
Cesari, J. (2013). Why the West Fears Islam: An Exploration of Muslims in Liberal Democracies. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Commins, D. (2006). The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia. London, UK; New York, NY: I.B. Tauris.
Haykel, B. (2009). On the nature of Salafi thought and action. In R. Meijer (Ed.), Global Salafism: Islam’s New Religious Movement (pp. 33–57). London, UK: Hurst Publishers.
Hegghammer, T. (2010). Jihad in Saudi Arabia: Violence and Pan-Islamism since 1979. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Horgan, J. (2014). The Psychology of Terrorism (2nd ed.). London, UK; New York, NY: Routledge.
Kepel, G. (2002). Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kundnani, A. (2014). The Muslims Are Coming! Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror. London, UK; New York, NY: Verso.
Neumann, P. R. (2013). The trouble with radicalization. International Affairs, 89(4), 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12049
Roy, O. (1994). The Failure of Political Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wiktorowicz, Q. (2006). Anatomy of the Salafi movement. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 29(3), 207–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10576100500497004
FIVE LAST CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE SAME AUTHOR
BEYOND COURTSHIP: INTENTIONALITY, GIFT, AND GRATUITOUSNESS IN LOVE
DESTROYING IMAGES, GOVERNING MEMORY: JIHADIST ICONOCLASM AND COGNITIVE WARFARE
HUMANOID ROBOTS: REPRODUCTION OF THE LIVING AND ONTOLOGICAL LIMIT
MOTHERHOOD INFLUENCERS: BETWEEN CATALOG PREGNANCIES AND LIVED-IN HOMES
VITAL POVERTY, ALGORITHMS, AND THE PREVENTION OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
FIVE LATEST CONTRIBUTIONS ON JIHAD
DESTROYING IMAGES, GOVERNING MEMORY: JIHADIST ICONOCLASM AND COGNITIVE WARFARE
WHITE JIHAD AS A TRANSNATIONAL GRAMMAR OF CONTEMPORARY VIOLENCE
WOMEN, FAITH AND MILITANCY IN CONTEMPORARY JIHAD
FROM WESTERN CANCEL CULTURE TO JIHADIST CANCEL CULTURE
SYRIA: FROM THE GHOSTS OF ASSAD TO A FRAGILE REBIRTH
FIVE LATEST CONTRIBUTIONS
ANOTHER SUICIDE IN THE CARABINIERI CORPS: FATHER OF THREE DIES IN FLORENCE
CRIME AND THE NORMALIZATION OF LOWER STANDARDS
GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE AND ECONOMIC ABUSE
BEYOND COURTSHIP: INTENTIONALITY, GIFT, AND GRATUITOUSNESS IN LOVE
THE PIETRO MENNEA GOLDEN GALA LIGHTS UP ROME AND ITALIAN SPORT
Ethica Societas is a free, non-profit review published by a social cooperative non-profit organization
Copyright Ethica Societas, Human&Social Science Review © 2026 by Ethica Societas UPLI onlus.
ISSN 2785-602X. Licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0