This research aims to analyze the semantic, identity, and civilizational structure of two dominant and rival discourses in contemporary Islam — the Takfir discourse and the Civilizational Shiism discourse — using Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analysis method and classical theories of religion, identity, and civilization. A critical analysis of key texts and ideological documents shows that the conflict between these two goes beyond jurisprudential disagreements and represents a structural battle over Islamic identity, political legitimacy, and the civilizational model. The Takfir discourse, centered on the signifier "Caliphate" and surrounded by signifiers such as "Righteous Predecessors," "Apparent Monotheism," "Takfir," "Innovation Rejection," and "Violent Jihad," produces an exclusive, divisive, and anti-civilizational identity. By rejecting rationality and promoting violence, it leads to sectarian polarization and weakens Islamic civilization-building. In contrast, the Civilizational Shiism discourse, centered on the signifier "Imamate" as the continuation of prophecy and divine governance, with surrounding signifiers including "Justice," "Rationality and Science," "Intercession and Pilgrimage," "Love of the Ahl al-Bayt," "Martyrdom," and "Mahdism," offers not only a religious identity but also a comprehensive project for a new Islamic civilization. Emphasizing reason, ethics, justice, and cultural resistance, this discourse provides the cognitive and operational infrastructure for building a new civilization. Findings indicate that the Civilizational Shiism discourse has the capacity to reduce identity crises, revive Islamic rationality, and build a just global civilization, while the Takfir discourse acts as an anti-civilizational force through violence and polarization. Therefore, the future of Islam depends on the expansion of the Civilizational Shiism discourse and confronting the Takfir discourse.