Re: "T" Word-Yes, "F" Word-No

[Richard Chonak <rac@gabriel.cambridge.ma.us>]

> Early on, there were commentators who said that the F word was far less
> accurate than "extremists" and others, but then the who thing just seemed to
> take on a "speak" of its own.  And the mental linkage b/w (anything) Arabs
> or (anything) Muslims if it's not lifting up the image, is damning.  The
> mind swings from transmitted images of "Fundamentalist Muslims" or "Muslim
> Terrorists" juxtaposed with pleas by the govt. to reach out and embrace the
> Muslim world.


I've always found the word "Fundamentalist", a term of Protestant
Christian theology coined in 1920, unhelpful in connection with
non-Christian religions.  When reporters or analysts apply it to members
of a non-Christian religion, it doesn't communicate a clear designation
of that people's beliefs.  I have to believe that Muslims themselves
would not use this word to designate the beliefs of the terrorists.

In the current crisis, some analysts have done better; they have found
what appears to be a more authentic religious label for Mr. bin Laden
and his guerrilla cohort.  Stephen Schwartz' helpful article in The
Spectator 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2001-09-22&id=1104 

seems to have caught on, as I've heard the term "Wahhabi Islam" used a
few times in the media to designate the sectarian-utopian movement that
broke from Sunni Islam, just happens to dominate Saudi Arabia, and
formed Mr. bin Laden. According to Schwartz, it also influences a
majority of US mosques.  

--RC