Also, BAME is an absurd term!
BAME is an absurd term! I thought the term BAME was absurd and inappropriate. I am glad that it is in the process of being ditched. ‘Islamists’ and ‘Islamism’ are also absurd terms! Similarly, I consider the terms ‘Islamists’ and ‘Islamism’ to also be absurd and inappropriate. Hope to see a day when people will realise how absurd these terms are and ditch them too.
“WHY NOBODY SHOULD USE THE TERMS ‘ISLAMISM’ AND ‘ISLAMIST’ WHEN ANALYSING, CATEGORISING AND DEFINING MUSLIM SOCIETIES
Take the term ‘extreme’. According to one definition, the term extreme means furthest from the centre or a given point. Take the term ‘extremist’. According to one definition, an extremist is ‘someone who has beliefs that most people think are unreasonable and unacceptable’. Another definition states that an extremist is ‘a person who holds extreme political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal, violent, or other extreme action’. Take the term ‘extremism’. According to one definition, extremism is ‘the holding of extreme political or religious views’. This means that an extremist is someone who holds extreme views and practices extremism.
I want to now explore several other terms in the same way as above: vegetarian, active, rational, empirical and socialism.
1. Vegetarian. The term ‘vegetarianism’ means, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, ‘the theory or practise of living solely upon vegetables, fruits, grains, and nuts – with or without the addition of milk products and eggs’. I could not find the word vegetarianist in the English language like the word extremist. Someone who is a vegetarian and eats only non-animal products, including or excluding milk and egg, is said to practice vegetarianism. It is clear that a vegetarian person feels, and others think or believe, that he or she practices vegetarianism.
2. Active. The term ‘activism’ means, according to one definition, ‘the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change’. The term ‘activist’ means, according to one definition, ‘a person who campaigns to bring about political or social change’. It is clear that an activist feels, and others think or believe, that she or he practices activism.
From these two examples, the activist’s and the vegetarian’s activism can be social or political, but whether the activism is a political or social one, a vegetarian is a vegetarian and an activist is an activist. A vegetarian does not become a vegetarianist and get separated from other vegetarians just because of her or his political activism, for example.
3. Rational. The term ‘rationalism’ means, according to one definition, ‘a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response’. The term ‘rationalist’ means, according to one definition, ‘a person who bases their opinions and actions on reason and knowledge’.
4. Empirical. The term ‘empiricism’ means, according to one definition, ‘the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience’. The term ‘empiricist’ means, according to one definition ‘a person who supports the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses’.
From these two examples, the rationalist believes in and practices rationalism and the empiricist believes in and practices empiricism. A rationalist might take his or her rationalism to political activism and develop or work for a political programme to achieve some of her or his rationalist’s political aims. Similarly, an empiricist might take her or his empiricism to political activism and develop or work for a political programme to achieve some of his or her empiricist’s political aims. When someone is a rationalist or an empiricist in their personal life, or social life or political life, they are still rationalists practising rationalism and empiricists practising empiricism. A rationalist or an empiricist does not become different from other rationalists and empiricists because they participate in rationalist or empiricist political activism.
One more example before concluding.
5. Socialism. The term ‘socialism’ means, according to one definition, ‘a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole’. The term ‘socialist’ means, according to one definition, ‘a person who advocates or practices socialism’.
In this example, a socialist practices socialism, and the primary aim of a socialist is to actively work to achieve socialist political objectives.
In all these five examples, an ‘ism’ represents the belief or practice of something by an ‘ist’, except when it is to do with vegetarianism where there is no ‘ist’, but a vegetarian practices vegetarianism.
6. Islam. The term ‘Islamism’ means, according to one definition, ‘Islamic militancy or fundamentalism’. According to another definition, ‘Islamism is different from Islam. Islam is a religion with several branches, while Islamism is a religious and political movement within Islam, based on certain literal interpretations of the Quran. The term ‘Islamist’ means, according to one definition, ‘an advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam’, and according to another, ‘a person who believes strongly in Islam, especially one who believes that Islam should influence political systems’.
From these definitions of Islamism and Islamist, it is clear that there is a double standard and linguistic inconsistency involved. In the case of the first five terms, there are linguistic and logical consistencies, in the sense that all the ‘ists’ practice their respective ‘isms’, but not in the case of Islam. Only some Muslims are said to be ‘ists’ who practice ‘ism’. If that is the case with Islam then why is there an inconsistency involved with, for example, the view that a vegetarian practices vegetarianism, whether or not he or she is politically involved in his or her vegetarian activism. Similarly, why does an activist practises activism, regardless of whether it’s political or social, but a normal believing Muslim does not practice Islamism, but only the extremist Muslims who practice Islamism? This does not make sense.
A normal believing Hindu is said to practice Hinduism, or a normal Jewish person is said to practice Judaism, then why cannot a normal Muslim practise Islamism. There is no term so far called Christianism or Christianist, but a normal believing Christian is said to practise Christianity. This does not make sense. How would you describe a practising Muslim or someone who practices Islam in the English language using one word rather than two or three or more words? You cannot just use the term Muslim to describe someone who practices Islam and call the practice of Islam as Islam and differentiate Islam from Islamism and Islamist from Muslim. This will not work if you want to identify those who are extremists, rather than normal Muslims.
Based on the normal logical process of the English Language, and to be consistent, including how the terms ending with ‘ism’ and ‘ist’ are logically related and applied, it would be the most logical and appropriate to describe most practising Muslims as Islamists who practise Islamism. A Muslim can legitimately ask why I cannot be described as an Islamist who practice Islamism when a person advocating women’s equal rights is called a feminist who practices feminism. Similarly, why a positivist is said to practice positivism or an atheist is said to practice atheism, but my practice is not Islamism. The terms Muslim and Islamist should be understood as synonymous and likewise the terms Islam and Islamism.
I hope one can see the problems in using the terms Islamism and Islamist to explain and categorise divisions in the Muslim world linked to extremism. The terms ‘Islamism’ and ‘Islamists’ have both become pejorative in reality, are the causes of many confusion, and they create barriers in helping to understand Muslims and Muslim societies. On the one hand, the terms Islamism and Islamists illegitimately divide the Muslim communities, by wrongly including and excluding. On the other hand, at another level, these terms include all practising Muslims in the minds of many people, and the pejorative meanings of Islamist and Islamism become applied to all Muslims, whether he or she is an extremist or not or engages in political movements or not. Also, the labelling of Muslims who are politically active or engages in political activism, inspired by their faiths, as Islamists are wrong. The use of these two terms is pejorative.
These two pejorative terms are very similar to how they used the terms ‘Red Indians’, ‘nigger’ and ‘old wives’ tales’, for example. They were designed and coined by external forces to derive power from defining and create a disadvantage for the defined. The Native Americans and Black People have rightly rejected the use of these terms as vile and inappropriate, and women have challenged tens of inappropriate terms used to define and categorise them. These kinds of external definitions usually have political purposes; create prejudice and stereotypes; cause disadvantage to the defined. It is best to reject external definitions and become self-definers.