Just like the word “Islamic” is often a misused word, the word “Islamist” is a horrible, devilish made up derivative of the word Islam.
Today’s big news for me is what seems to be a terrorist attack by ISIS in France. The link to BBC article is below, and it keeps updating, so if you go there you should see the latest news about the subject matter.
Man decapitated in attack near Lyon
When I first read the news earlier today many things were uncertain. Decapitation, and black flags with white arabic writings were certain. BBC immediately published this article about Islamic terrorism, ISIS connection, and what was going on in Kobane by association. All these were concluded from a stand alone head, and black flags. Theoretically, things anyone could phisically accomplish.
The article above uses two descriptions: “Islamist attack” and “Islamist radicals”. Below is a quote from the title:
“France has begun a terror investigation after a decapitated body was found at the scene of a suspected Islamist attack on a US-owned gas factory near the south-eastern city of Lyon.”
To tell you the truth, after getting to know about the details I also thought there may be a connection between this attack and the Psychopaths of Syria and Iraq (PSI, is the acronym I use instead of ISIS or its derivatives). Alternatively, it could have been done by any other group with phisical or conceptual connection to PSI. Nevertheless, I take issue on the fact that this is to be considered an “Islamist attack”, done by “Islamist radicals”.
First, philologically what are the areas the word “Islamist” is used? We understand its combination with terror, but anywhere else? Since this word stems from the word Islam, it must have some use in the religion. Take for instance Islamist temple, or Islamist country. Neither of these make any sense, and are not in use. These two examples could only imply a terrorist connection in today’s world. The suffix “-ist”, adds the meanings ‘one who’ or ‘that which’ to the foregoing word, such as artist, scientist or dentist. I suppose Islamist would mean a person who does Islam (the religion). That is meanigless by itself. Note that there is a name for a person who practices the religion, and that is muslim. In the final analysis the only use of the word “Islamist” is as it pertains to a an act of terrorism.
Second, religiously this word is also meaningless. As mentioned above, there is no use of this word in the religious life itself. In the Quran there are mentions of muslims, there are people who fight on the side of the muslim society (these are called soldiers), there are the people who worship to a pantheon of gods, there are people who appear to be muslims only for their societal benefits, there are prophets, societies etc. No description in the Quran can be adjusted to mean Islamist.
As a result, I have to conclude that the word “Islamist” can only mean something in conjunction with a terrorist act. The only benefit of the use of this word can be to the Western politics, which seem to try to keep the religion of Islam and its people under scrutiny, and this is an understandable political agenda. Clearly, their best allies are the terrorist groups such as PSI, who are not living a religious life, are not muslims, and conduct acts of violence under God’s watch, in contradiction with Quran’s and Bible’s teachings.
It is not Islam-ic. 
Reblogged this on Genesis of Tomorrow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for rebloging. I would love these issues to be discussed more widely.
LikeLike
I agree with you, to a point. And I very much like your PSI word! Murdering in the name of any God is murder, period. Yet, having just read “Heretic” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I guess I would say these murderers are Muslims, however misguided, since they do follow many teachings of the Qur’an and Muhammad. Just as in my former faith (Christianity), there are many who choose to follow select parts of their holy books with injustice, murder, etc. Those of us who are “progressives” or liberals may not want to admit these people are “true believers” yet they are, in many ways, simply following teachings found in the same scriptures and tradition.
Of course, this is one reason growing numbers of us just leave the faith altogether. Then we don’t have to weed out the wheat from the chaff!
I wish you well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Chris,
I love this comment! Because it touches perhaps the most important point of argument in Islam, and probably in others.
The ecole that PSI follows is very old. Did you know that the Umayyad Dynasty from which most of the wrong thinking in today’s Islam stems from, killed the family of Islam’s Prophet accusing them being against the religion their grandfather brought!? All the while the ones in power kept praying good wishes and highest honors to the Prophet and his descendants in their prayers. They did so because this was part of their “religions teaching”, and they killed Prophet’s family because they were telling things that went against the Dynasty’s rulings. This hypocrisy almost always comes from thirst for power, and the use of people’s most sacred religion to benefit their personal gains.
This Caliphate did the same torture to Imam-i Azam (Abu Hanifa), who is one of the most revered interpreters of the Quran, and the idea leader of a huge following. Because he had raised his voice to speak against the unjust acts of that state, they tortured him. Of course, they also killed him, because he had gone awry of the State’s understanding of religion.
Umayyad Dynasty and Muawiye is PSI’s idea ecole. They always claim they have the best religion, and they act for it but in the end they get more powerful and rich than anyone in their society. This ecole would sell God (or torture God) if they could, for the benefit of the same God’s religion so long as it benefits their well being. No, they don’t follow the Prophet, or teachings of Islam, they are not muslims. They do worship a God or gods, but that is not the God presents himself in the Quran.
LikeLike