It's time for another Semantic Distinctions that Irritate Me for No Reason At All post!
In these last few years we've heard the word "fundamentalist" thrown around in the news a lot, especially (let's be real) with regard to Islam and Muslims. It was an understandable reaction in 2001, and I don't think I need to remind anybody why. Religious extremism was, and is, a very scary thing, to say the least.
At this point, I think it's important to delineate the difference between a fundamentalist and a fanatic. Firstly, "fundamentalism" as a word was originally coined to refer to a specific set of Christian doctrine, specifically in opposition to so-called Modernist Theology. The differences between those two aren't the topic of this post (or something I especially care about, to put it crassly), but there's the word origin. Fundamentalism, in its very least refined form, could be put as "sticking to the basics." It pertains to a political movement as well, also known as being "conservative" (although God knows that word gets a bad rap now too). "Fundamental," the root word, refers to something "forming a necessary base or core; of central importance."
As an interesting side note, if the word was stripped of its connotations, I could be labeled a fundamentalist Christian. It's that part about believing in things "of central importance;" the details of doctrine are essentially unimportant when measured up against underlying core concepts. That, unfortunately, is not what the word refers to, and is also off topic. I return.
The word "fundamentalist," deprived of its Christian context, structurally goes like this: strict adherence to the written tenets of a religion. You could think of it as similar to what Constitutional strict constructionists believe, modified for religion; use what is written and do not modify it, essentially. That segues with comical slickness into my next point.
The people responsible for the World Trade Center attacks were not fundamentalists. If I was being properly fiery, I might even say they weren't genuine Muslims at all, drinking the warping poison of al-Qaeda as they were. A "fundamentalist" Muslim, reading the Qur'an through the lens of a strict interpretation, could never have conceived of anything like the motives behind the attacks, let alone actually carrying the bloody things out.
I'm going to digress briefly to give you some quick facts about Islam and simultaneously explain why the media have got it completely bass-ackwards, as they say. First of all, Allah and God are the same entity. I saw a news report attempting to explain "Allah vs. God" to the American public, and I just about gave up completely. Yes, one of these names is used by a religion that originated in the Middle East, and the other is used in a religion that originated in... oh.
The errata: Moses is mentioned more than any other person in the Qur'an. Mary is mentioned more times in the Qur'an than in the New Testament. Other little details in the Qur'an include lots of people like John the Baptist, Solomon, David, Noah, Adam, and Job, and so on ad infinitum. The one I want to bring to your attention is a minor character named Jesus.
That's right, everybody; Jesus is mentioned as an ordained prophet in the Qur'an. So no, I don't think it's valid to try and explain all the ways in which Islam and Christianity are different or how one is the enemy.
This, obviously, begs the question: if they weren't fundamentalist Muslims, what were they?
Fanatics. We didn't kill a Muslim when the S.E.A.L.s (er, excuse me, DEVGRU) executed bin Laden; we killed a fanatic. And fanatics everywhere, no matter the color of their skin, or the beliefs they claim to represent, or where they were born, or how they act out their fanaticism, are the same.
TL;DR "Islamist" is not a word. I could keep elaborating, but you're smart and you undoubtedly caught on.
No comments:
Post a Comment