The primary contribution of this thesis lies in emphasizing the significance of considering the agency of Islamists when analyzing militant Islamist activism. Within the complex interplay of structural and cultural conditions, Islamists interpret opportunities and navigate constraints, engaging in dynamic processes of strategic framing and decision-making. The internal dynamics of militant Islamist activism are more intricate than commonly portrayed, marked by constant competition for power, wealth, prestige, and influence. This research underscores the pivotal role of intra-movement power struggles in shaping the group’s responses to critical junctures in the political landscape.
Challenging prevailing scholarly attempts to exceptionalize Salafi-Jihadism as rigid and distinct, this study reveals it as an extension of the broader modern phenomenon of Islamism. Qualitative analysis of al-Nusra’s ideologues demonstrates shared features with other Islamists, including the centrality of politics in discourse, long-term activist objectives, and visions of an ideal society. Despite this ideological convergence, Salafi-Jihadist activism allows for strategic prioritizations, manoeuvrings, and adaptations. Historical and discursive experiences reveal a dialectical interplay between ideology and pragmatism. Bridging the gap between discourse and real-life considerations has led to the evolution of new branches in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), theorized and elaborated by an empowered class of jihadist strategists.
Specific choices made by these strategists shaped the trajectory of al-Nusra, influencing its oscillation between “moderation” and “radicalism” from 2012 to 2018. Armed with geopolitical knowledge, these strategists marginalize competing currents by labelling them as either ghulat “extremists” or too lenient and compromising.