...One of the three sides is identified mostly with radical Muslims, who are engaged in Jihad to try to fulfill a perceived religious mandate to dominate the world. But some who have been part of that side have had other motivations, such as Saddam's pan-Arabism (which was essentially agnostic). Of the three, this force is also the most well organized and structured, and the only one which exists because of a deliberate campaign.

At one point I referred to this side as "Arab Traditionalism", but that was never a very satisfactory label. Some have called it "Islamofascism", but these days the term I'm most comfortable with (which is to say, not very) is "Islamism". One of the reasons I'm uncomfortable even with that label is that Islamism is not congruent to Islam. There are millions of Muslims who are not part of it. There are many Muslims who are strong supporters of one of the other sides, and some of those who do support it are not devout Muslims. Even so, of the three sides this one is easiest to perceive and characterize; they're all cloudy and indistinct, but this is the least indistinct.

Of the three sides, Islamism as a political force appeared the most recently, within the last 150 years.

The other two sides are derived from Western philosophical roots. For them I've had to invent my own names: "p-idealism" and "empiricism"...