Islamic Misnomer

The term “Islamic fundamentalist” has been used quite often in the news to represent terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. I believe, this is a misnomer or at least an imprecise term and I would like to suggest (not that anyone is listening) another more precise term when referring to these terrorists: Islamic militants.

The reason for this seems clear once you start to think about it. Fundamentalism, in itself, is not a threatening idea. The world has many religious groups that are happy to consider themselves fundamentalists, yet they seem to have enough ideological constraint not to terrorize the general public. Fundamentalism simply means “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles” (Webster’s Dictionary). Yet, more recently this term is used to refer to the those of the Muslim faith that have engage in warfare in the name of their religion. The terms and the definitions seem to be incongruent.

Liberal ideologs in the U.S. and European philosophers (such as French philosopher Jacques Derrida) have equated American Christian fundamentalists on par with Islamic terrorists. Derrida, along with other European thinkers, professed the idea that the current conflict between the west and the mid-east is basically caused by a disagreement in ideology between the Muslim fundamentalists and the Christian fundamentalist in America. Even though, this theory is chopped full of blinding errors, this is a popular theory in much of Europe. Liberals in American are starting to make this connection as well, because they don’t like the politics of the religious right (see James W. Ceaser’s article Faith in Democracy, in the Weekly Standard, on 11/07/2005, Volume 011, Issue 08 for a full review of this side of the issue).

However, it is not fundamentalism, per se, that is the problem. In fact, we in American should value the faith of each individual no matter where they fit on the religious continuum. The problem is when that segment of religious fundamentalism straps a bomb to themselves, or fills a car full of explosives, or high-jacks a couple of airplanes and kills innocent citizens in the name of faith.

No, fundamentalism is not the problem. The problem is the over zealous few that channel their passion into militant action. Let’s face it: Bin Laden would not be such an issue if he was a just a fundamentalist Islamic leader, but the moment he decided to pursue terrorist actions – he became a threat. The problem is caused by those that incite the violence and those that carry it out. It is the “militant” Islamic wing of the religion that is cause of so much spilled blood. It is the Islamic militants that are the real danger.

It may seem like an insignificant thing, this term, but fundamentalism is a vague label that is quickly becoming misused in our society. If we are not careful, once fundamentalism is defined as “dangerous,” then anyone that has a zealousness for their faith can be called a fundamentalist and therefore, a danger to society.