I find words very interesting. When I am speaking about
relationships, I often point out that men and women “do not speak the same
language.” Though they use the same words, their interpretations of the words
are often very different. In social communication it is the same. Some people
take words literally and while others have extensive meanings attached to
individual words.
Over the years, words and expressions have been given new
meanings. In my youth, “bad” was actually a negative, but as an adult I found
the youth using the word as a positive. The examples of this are rampant.
Language grows and new words are added to describe new ideas
or developments, as well as old words being attached to a new idea or
development. This makes things extremely complicated because the new “meaning”
of the words does not always spread as fast as the use of the word itself –
resulting in people using the words but not always interpreting the words
the same.
Several years ago I attended a guest speaker lecture at
Arizona State University about the threat of radical Islam in the United
States. The speaker made the statement that almost all Muslims in the United
States were militant Islamists.
I will be honest, it was the first time I had heard the term
“Islamist” so I really had no definition or meaning attached to it, but I did
get the clear understanding that it was not a good thing.
During the question and answer session, admittedly out of
complete ignorance on my part, I asked how could I be a militant Islamist when
I was a Southern girl. The speaker responded that Islamists come in all
kinds. He then self-published an article
saying that I was now profiling.
I fully accept my responsibility for that critique - not
because I intended to throw “others” under the bus by profiling or even to
distinguish me as ethnically superior in any way - but because it was, and still
is, completely outside my comprehension how anyone [outside of being
indoctrinated from birth and never having access to history, much less studied
Islam enough to convert] could possibly believe the ideas associated with
radical hate and a desire to kill others in mass. I have grown to understand
many people are susceptible to such hateful messages - and not just Muslims.
A couple of years later, I attended a round-table at the
Arizona State University’s “Center for Religion and Conflict.” Among the topics
covered was a discussion on Muslim voters. One of the speakers made a statement
about the increase in Muslim voters and political advocacy being a concern
because they were “Islamists” and that was dangerous for the United States.
I responded that the activities Muslims were involved in
(backing political candidates, registering Muslims to vote, and actually
voting) were no different than other minority groups, or the majority for that
matter.
The speaker responded that I was an Islamist. Well that shut me up! I still did not
understand the label, and therefore, had no ability to articulate a defense.
Fortunately, the other attendees were all professors and
passionately responded with similar attempts within the “not so proud” US
history to exclude minorities from the political process.
Over the years, I have still not been able to “pin down” the
definition of “Islamist.” A simple Google search demonstrates even the
definition websites and the media cannot agree on the definition either – or to
whom it applies.
I have heard a few explanations of “Islamists.” Some have
sounded reasonable; some have just been excuses to spread hate, fear, and
mistrust about an entire group of people spanning the globe, literally and in
diversity – the world population of 7 billion includes around 2 billion
Muslims, with fewer than 3 million living among the 300 million population of
the United States.
The term is batted around so much. The label is “pinned” to
people without any explanation. Just being a Muslim will often get a person
labeled “Islamist” by those who disagree with anything the Muslim says or does
– all the way down to whether being an “Islamist” was the cause of an auto accident. [True story.]
Trying to figure it out often reminds me of Red’s response
to whether he has been rehabilitated in a scene from Shawshank Redemption:
What do you really want to know? How does one prove he or
she is not an “Islamist?”
I still do not know.
But mostly, I do not see why I should arbitrarily have to.
What do you think the definition of "Islamist" is?
Should we require every Muslim to prove he or she is not an "Islamist?" What would be the requirements?
What do you really want to know?
What do you think the definition of "Islamist" is?
Should we require every Muslim to prove he or she is not an "Islamist?" What would be the requirements?
What do you really want to know?
* "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." - George Orwell, 1984
