Commentary, Contemporary, Interfaith, Islam, Islamic, News, Philosophy, Religion, Uncategorized

“Islamist Attack” by “Islamist Radicals” in Lyon, France. 

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.