‘Ist’ is often used to describe a disciple of a deviant or disreputable ideology e.g. communist, Marxist, anarchist or Satanist. It also describes prejudiced people: sexist, racist, fascist and jingoist. ‘Ist’ has negative connotations: fundamentalist, extremist and terrorist.
Thus you see why I get so mad when I hear ‘Islamist’. A person who follows or practises Islam is a Muslim not an ‘Islamist’. ‘Islamist’ is tantamount to ‘terrorist’ – an ‘Islamist cleric’, an ‘Islamist school’. Stop being cowardists you media mother****ists, with your subtlest tricks, say what you mean and stop trying to ambush people with subliminal tricks.
What if people started went around replacing ‘Republican’ with ‘Republicanist’ or ‘Conservative’ with ‘Conservatist’? I'm willing to bet many sections of the media wouldn’t use words like those, especially the News Corp group of papers who would probably ban it in their house style rules.
Before 9/11 and 7/7 I’d never heard of or used the word ‘Islamist’ – it was ‘Islamic cleric’ or ‘Islamic school’ etc. The ‘ic’ suffix has much nicer connotations: medic, paramedic, ayurvedic, vedic, tantric – implying that emergencies or injuries to the soul, body or the mind will be healed. For example an ‘Islamic school’ will heal peoples ill-formed knowledge whereas an ‘Islamist school’ will teach kids to blow themselves up on packed underground trains.
There are some exceptions to the rule of ‘ist’. ‘Buddhist’ is one of those words but that word has been around for years and people of that faith are not being persecuted and demonised for half the crap in the world. ‘Pacifist’ is another exception but war-mongers hate pacifists because they try to stop the violent minority making money from sales of arms that cause the deaths of thousands of people. Just in case you’re confused and you don’t know what I’m on about: war = money. Point of research for you all!
The media ain’t all bad but it’s created a problem with this suffix. Hopefully people will see this and realise think, “This suffix sh*t is a problem – suffix it!” (Just couldn’t help it.)
There's no doubt that many of these terms do have negative connotations and it does make a difference. What terms do you think should be used to cover the various circumstances?
Through out history at any point in time one group of people have been treated like dirt. Scottish, African American, Armenians, as well as now which are the Muslims in general. When a society is made to be believed as an evil religion or race there are never positive suffixes used. It is all hyped right now to hate muslims no matter what, ad the Ignorant will always believe what they hear because they do not seek to find the truth. With this said everyone should Read the Quran both elders and children with Tajweed and learn the translation for everything being learned. Allah (swt) has given us the Quran to follow by to not be ignorant and to teach others that Islam is based on peace and love. READQURANONLINE.NET
‘Ist’ is often used to describe a disciple of a deviant or disreputable ideology e.g. communist, Marxist, anarchist or Satanist. It also describes prejudiced people: sexist, racist, fascist and jingoist. ‘Ist’ has negative connotations: fundamentalist, extremist and terrorist.
Thus you see why I get so mad when I hear ‘Islamist’. A person who follows or practises Islam is a Muslim not an ‘Islamist’. ‘Islamist’ is tantamount to ‘terrorist’ – an ‘Islamist cleric’, an ‘Islamist school’. Stop being cowardists you media mother****ists, with your subtlest tricks, say what you mean and stop trying to ambush people with subliminal tricks.
What if people started went around replacing ‘Republican’ with ‘Republicanist’ or ‘Conservative’ with ‘Conservatist’? I'm willing to bet many sections of the media wouldn’t use words like those, especially the News Corp group of papers who would probably ban it in their house style rules.
Before 9/11 and 7/7 I’d never heard of or used the word ‘Islamist’ – it was ‘Islamic cleric’ or ‘Islamic school’ etc. The ‘ic’ suffix has much nicer connotations: medic, paramedic, ayurvedic, vedic, tantric – implying that emergencies or injuries to the soul, body or the mind will be healed. For example an ‘Islamic school’ will heal peoples ill-formed knowledge whereas an ‘Islamist school’ will teach kids to blow themselves up on packed underground trains.
There are some exceptions to the rule of ‘ist’. ‘Buddhist’ is one of those words but that word has been around for years and people of that faith are not being persecuted and demonised for half the crap in the world. ‘Pacifist’ is another exception but war-mongers hate pacifists because they try to stop the violent minority making money from sales of arms that cause the deaths of thousands of people. Just in case you’re confused and you don’t know what I’m on about: war = money. Point of research for you all!
The media ain’t all bad but it’s created a problem with this suffix. Hopefully people will see this and realise think, “This suffix sh*t is a problem – suffix it!” (Just couldn’t help it.)
Harsh but on the ball, these words are used as ideological weapons in this case to drum up support for wars conquests etc etc, and of course to divide Muslims. Not a new phenomenon, 60+ years ago Orwell made a similar point about the word 'fascist' it became so overused it essentially became a meaningless word.
(Just to add, probably a more appropriate analogy is how the word 'communist' was used during the Cold War. Now leave aside for a moment what we think about communism, the point it if you were not an ally of America (or the West generally) you were a labelled 'communist' or 'communist sympathiser'. It became so overused that it almost became meaningless.)
'Islamist' sounds sinister, wonder who dreamt it up? I Personally have little idea what it means.
To be fair it goes the other way as well. For instance the term 'westerner' what does that mean? Isn't that a blanket term?
Last edited by سيف الله; 01-17-2013 at 11:10 PM.
Reason: added more information
To be fair it goes the other way as well. For instance the term 'westerner' what does that mean? Isn't that a blanket term?
Yes, it is a blanket term, and in some societies it's used as an insult. In fact many of these words are negative or positive according to who says them. For instance, I find the use of the word 'kuffar' offensive.
In which case, what terms do you think the media can use to describe those groups who say they are fighting in the cause of Islam? They can't just call all the groups 'Muslims'. In fact, you could argue that this is more offensive because it implies that all Muslims share their views and support their actions, whereas the word 'Islamist' is clearly trying to make a distinction between different groups of Muslims (however ineffectively).
What term do you think could be used that has clarity as well as accuracy for a general audience?
Last edited by Independent; 01-17-2013 at 02:27 PM.
Semantics are fun, because everybody is right and everybody is wrong!
More seriously, 'Islamist' is a silly propagandist (see what I did there?) buzzword meant to oversimplify complex matters into nice Saturday-morning-cartoon-villain-sized chunks.
Does no one have any suggestions for this? What's the media to do if there is no other term that makes sense and communicates?
Im sure western elites are more than creative enough to come up with appropriate terms if they wanted to. Look at how they referred to the Mujaheddin in 1980s or describing the protagonists in the Syrian civil war. Or how do they report/investigate other conflicts around the world (the civil war in Northern Ireland, or American gangland culture in the USA (eg. Watch The Wire)). Its not to say that reporting isn't biased but it far more saner.
The point is that this term 'Islamist' is not a term Muslims recognise and is being used as an ideological weapon.
Anyway just received a book in the post At War With Asia by Noam Chomsky written in 1969-1970. Just read the first page.
'In 1947 commenting on the rising tide of 'anti 'communism' hysteria in the United States, John K Fairbanks made the following perceptive observations:
'Our fear of communism, partly as an expression of our general fear of the future, will continue to inspire us to aggressive anti communist policies in Asia and elsewhere, [and] the American people will be led to think and may honestly believe that the support of anticommunist governments in Asia will somehow defend the American way of life. This line of American policy will lead to American aid to establish regimes which attempt to suppress the popular movements in Indonesian, Indochina, the Philippines and China. . . . Thus, after setting out to fight Communism in Asia, the American people will be obliged in the end to fight the peoples of Asia.
This American aggression abroad will be associated with an increasing trend towards anti Communist authoritarianism within the United States, which its victims will call fascism and which may eventually make it impossible to have discussions like this one today. This American fascism will come, it it comes, because American liberals have joined the American public in a fear of Communism from abroad rather than fascism at home as the chief totalitarian menace.'
These remarks have proved to be accurate. The events of April 1970 reveal, once again, how the policy of 'anti-communism draws the American government, step by fateful step, into an endless war against the peoples of Asia, and, as a natural concomitant, toward harsh repression and defiance of law at home.'
Im sure western elites are more than creative enough to come up with appropriate terms if they wanted to.
If there is no consensus even amongst Muslims for appropriate terms, I hardly think you'd want to entrust western media with the task.
The problem is that there are a huge number of different groups involved, with seemingly more being created or coming to the fore every day. It's too much to expect each one to be analysed and described individually - especially when the group themselves may not be crystal clear about their objectives.
As for comparisons to other non-Muslim conflicts/civil wars etc, I'm struggling to think of any major incident that involves specifically religious objectives. (The Northern Ireland conflict had a religious aspect, but since both sides were Christian it would be of no value to refer to them as 'Christian terrorists'.)
If the media called these groups simply 'Muslim' it would imply that all Muslims are part of it or share their objectives. So they look for a term that distinguishes or separates. They end up with terms like 'moderate' and 'extremist', 'fundamentalist' and 'Islamicist'. Of the set, I would have thought that Islamicist is the least perjorative. Yes, it has a negative image in the west - but so does the word 'Sharia', and you wouldn't object to that.
I often see people raise the objection that you are either a 'Muslim' or not, there can be no other distinction. But clearly there are other distinctions like Shiite and Sunni, even if neither side want to admit the other to the fold. And within these sects there are many, many other subdivisions and shades of belief. (The same as any religion.)
Does no one have any suggestions for others terms the media could use?
Interesting. How do people feel about using this term?
Ardianto, do they specify it as 'Muslim hardliner'? Do they use 'hardliner' in any other context?
Garis Keras (Hardliner) is used not only for Muslims but also for other people such as nationalists or communists. Definition of garis keras (hardliner) is "ultra" in ideology, refuse compromise with other similar (in ideology) groups, and especially, can use violence to reach their goal. Muslim garis keras (hardliner Muslims) are Muslims who force other Muslims to accept their version of Islamic law and do not hesitate to use violence for it. This is very different than "conservative Muslims".
Muslim garis keras (hardliner Muslims) are Muslims who force other Muslims to accept their version of Islamic law and do not hesitate to use violence for it. This is very different than "conservative Muslims".
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Good brother liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks