| dc.description.abstract | Through a qualitative comparative content analysis, this thesis sets out to describe current
splintering within the Islamist terrorist movement – a noteworthy change given previous intergroup tolerance. The comparison is made between al-Qaeda, Islamic State, and Hamas. These have been chosen partly because of shared ideological and territorial backgrounds (facilitating tolerance in the first place), and partly to point to the breadth and complexity of the movement lacking in many portrayals. Through a comprehensive collection of coding categories, ranging from strategical and structural to ideological ones, the results show splintering across an array of themes. The most prominent issues of contention surround strategy, and differences in what is perceived to be the real enemy – ranging from local to global in scope, and from the very tangible regional enemy to a more nebulous global entity and discourse, respectively. Important
differences of timing and ambition of the idea of consolidating Islamic land and rule can be
found here, too. Less tangible differences, though equally important in describing disagreement, are ideological matters of waging religious warfare, and views on heretical behaviour. These results show the importance of contextualisation and nuance in describing this movement. Whether it be research, media portrayals, or counterterrorism-work, similar emphasis on
contextualisation should be practiced to avoid oversimplification and wrongly drawn
conclusions of what constitutes a phenomenon as complex as Islamist terrorism. | sv |
