[Flalafuse]

Assalam alaikum,

Why does media promotes the new derivatives of the word "Islam" in a derogatory sense, like the word "Islamist"! How come these words find their way into main stream international media? Is their no international law against the use of defaming words used by media? It feels really bad when you see words that associate the religion itself to a negative feeling. Its also very sorry to see muslims also adopting these words without thinking over it.

[Shinegayboyx]

You made the first step: being aware and cognizant of the deviancy!

Inventing words and propagating their usage serves to accomplish several objectives: 1)maintain 'leadership' in political thought about a topic; 2) gain advantage over adversaries and enemies; 3) manipulate public opinion against adversaries.

"Islamism" is typical of Western enemies of Allah- when they were busy invading Muslim lands during the colonial era, they used terms like "Mohammadans". During the Crusades, it was "Saracens" and "Moors".

After the Spanish Christians regained control over SPain, they eventually spread their empire to the South Pacific wherein they discovered Muslims (of today's Phillipines) who they called "Moros" as a derogatory derivative of Moors.

As humans, we struggle to understand things in order to gain power over it, or utilize it. When didn't understand hadeed/iron at first. Eventually we learned to identify it as iron ore, then utilize it in manufacturing weaponry and armor- like chain mail taught by Allah (SWT)- then we learned to manipulate it completely from the atomic level, forming new metals.

As deviant humans, one can read about all the prophets and how the leaders of the enemies of Allah tried to frame the prophets in some category to control people's thinking: such and such is from a poor family, or such and such is a sorcerer, or such and such is crazy.

Today, the enemies have largely given up totally defeating the Aqidah of Islam. However, they aspire to advocate secularism such that politics and religion are seperated so that Islam has nothing to do with life and politics. Hence "islamism" refers to Islam addressing politics, while "Islam" according to the enemies of Allah, means a private religion which may occur in private but should not occur in public affairs.

[Tumarimmicdak]

By Islamism they mean political. They want to associate a non political quiet Islam as the real, good Islam...which can live alongside the dominant Secularism. Unfortunately "Islamists" are using Un-Islamic modern ideologies so they are not representative of Islam. Islam the Deen is Muamalat (an Arabic word meaning transactions, trade and commerce), Muslims need to bring Islamic Muamalat into reality...this way we no longer are associated with either "Islamists" or the quiet "secularised" Muslims who have reduced the deen to Amaal only. If we all work towards the five branches of Deen we would be Muslims-:

(TAKEN FROM)
MUSLIM WAY OF LIFE
The Five Branches of Deen
By Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi rahmatullahi alayh
http://www.myiwc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4231


THE FIVE BRANCHES OF THE SHARIAT (ISLAMIC LEGAL CODE)

The Shariat (Islamic legal Code) consists of five branches or parts: Aqqa-id, A'maal, Muamalaat, Akhlaaq, Husn-e-Muasharat (Social Etiquette).

1- AQQA-ID (Beliefs), e.g., beliefs in the Oneness of Allah (s.w.t- The Exalted) and the Risaalat (Prophet hood) of The Holy Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

2- A'MAAL (righteous deeds), e.g., Salaat (Daily Prayers), Saum.

3- MUAMALAAT (Transactions, Contracts), e.g., trade and commerce.

4- AKHLAAQ (Moral character), e.g., humility, generosity, etc.

5- HUSN-E-MUASHARAT (SOCIAL ETIQUETTE) (Beautiful social conduct, i.e., good relationship with people, e.g., abstention from acts which cause others inconvenience, such as disturbing a person in his sleep.

[lollypop]

...this way we no longer are associated with either "Islamists" or the quiet "secularised" Muslims.....

JazakAllah brother, but the question of association with the word "Islamist" arise after we accept such a word. We should not accept it in the first place.

[Nutpoode]

JazakAllah brother

[StitlyDute]

JazakAllah brother, but the question of association with the word "Islamist" arise after we accept such a word. We should not accept it in the first place.

We do not have to accept it if we do not want to...but how are we going to label the modernist political Muslims who adopt ideologies outside of Islam? Should we just call them Muslims even if they are distorting the deen and its teachings?

[somasideff]

We do not have to accept it if we do not want to...but how are we going to label the modernist political Muslims who adopt ideologies outside of Islam? Should we just call them Muslims even if they are distorting the deen and its teachings?

Brother the labelling of beign a muslim or not rests in the hand of Allah Subhana wa Ta'ala. But it is in our hand not to let such a beautiful word(Islam) distorted in meaning (Islamist) and used for such a bad lot.

[aNoBVsUW]

Brother the labelling of beign a muslim or not rests in the hand of Allah Subhana wa Ta'ala. But it is in our hand not to let such a beautiful word(Islam) distorted(Islamist) and used for such a bad lot.

I agree with you sister, language has been hijacked in subtle ways to distort peaceful phraseology, into association with something more sinister.
These are familiar demonisation tactics, the process of otherisation, similar to the use of "cockroaches" that begin the mindset, that may lead to the genocide of a peoples
These are right wing Islamaphobic and xenophobic vernacular, and we must recognise such, combat intellectually such and make muslims aware of such.

[Yessaniloas]

We do not have to accept it if we do not want to...but how are we going to label the modernist political Muslims who adopt ideologies outside of Islam? Should we just call them Muslims even if they are distorting the deen and its teachings?

We should call them extremist, because they are extreme. Even in Arabic there is a translation for "extremist"
Telling the truth is the best route to sincere lingua franca. In sha Allah.

[dmitrynts]

Can we do something about this?

Because even 'respectable' organisations like BBC use it regularly. You never hear Christianists or Jewists.

Words like coloured and the N word used to be frequently used before but now deemed unacceptable, probably because of campaigns/pressure. Surely we can do something similar to stop the demonisation of our religions name.

[QiuCIOdO]

The definition of 'Islamist' as far as I have ascertained, is applied to people as widely varied as Recep Erdogan and Mr. adh-Dhawahiri. This makes it a stupid term. It can be loosely defined as 'someone who wants Shari'a to have something to do with government,' regardless of the level.

[newwebstar]

Can we do something about this?

Because even 'respectable' organisations like BBC use it regularly. You never hear Christianists or Jewists.

Words like coloured and the N word used to be frequently used before but now deemed unacceptable, probably because of campaigns/pressure. Surely we can do something similar to stop the demonisation of our religions name.

Have you heard the new one - "Islamics" - ho ho ho. its quite pathetic really. Next will be "Islamisistical".. rather amusing to us muslims, overall, and pitiful. If that is their defnition, then by defintion, they have no concept of Peace.

Therefore it turns from anger, towards pity and then towards concern how can our fellow humans subsist in such darkness. That then becomes our challenge, to have worry for those who have marginal concepts of peace, in an encompassing "As Salaam" sense

[BigBobdd]

We could complain but we would need to be well organized and workinng as hundreds of thousands. These terms have been invented by powerful and well funded think tanks and academics in back who get paid a great deal of money to bring their 'ideas' to fruition.

Can we do something about this?

Because even 'respectable' organisations like BBC use it regularly. You never hear Christianists or Jewists.

Words like coloured and the N word used to be frequently used before but now deemed unacceptable, probably because of campaigns/pressure. Surely we can do something similar to stop the demonisation of our religions name.

[Sotmoigma]

Why does media promotes the new derivatives of the word "Islam" in a derogatory sense, like the word "Islamist"! How come these words find their way into main stream international media? Is their no international law against the use of defaming words used by media? It feels really bad when you see words that associate the religion itself to a negative feeling. Its also very sorry to see muslims also adopting these words without thinking over it.

The answer is quite simple sister.

"Those who coin the words of the issue; own the discussion"

Unfortunately, the muslims have not learned this basic fact.

[ServiceColas]

The answer is quite simple sister.

"Those who coin the words of the issue; own the discussion"

Unfortunately, the muslims have not learned this basic fact.

This is true, all the books, magazines and mass media create all the labels and frame the arguments, and those of us who enter into their frame get trapped in their world. To escape we can either ignore all their media, or we can construct our own frame, we can re-frame it in ways that are beneficial to us. Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) can teache us how to re-frame and gain dominance in discussions.

[Peertantyb]

The answer is quite simple sister.

"Those who coin the words of the issue; own the discussion"

Unfortunately, the muslims have not learned this basic fact.

I would agree with that statement. Muslims are unnaware that the inherent meanings of words effect the outcomes of discussion.
We need to deconstruct words to their core root meanings.

For example, those who accuse the muslims of classing them as "infidel"
We should reply; "Infidel" is from the latin Fidelis, which means Faith. So infidel is "without faith", whether that is Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any Faith in a Higher Supreme Authority.
Therefore its not purely a muslim accusation, and not even that derogatory, rather an accusation levelled by one with any "faith"

Hey, maybe someone should start a thread, where we can deconstruct commonly misdiagnosed phraseology.

[TOPERink]

I would agree with that statement. Muslims are unnaware that the inherent meanings of words effect the outcomes of discussion.
We need to deconstruct words to their core root meanings.

For example, those who accuse the muslims of classing them as "infidel"
We should reply; "Infidel" is from the latin Fidelis, which means Faith. So infidel is "without faith", whether that is Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any Faith in a Higher Supreme Authority.
Therefore its not purely a muslim accusation, and not even that derogatory, rather an accusation levelled by one with any "faith"

Hey, maybe someone should start a thread, where we can deconstruct commonly misdiagnosed phraseology.

Brother, deconstruction of words that already frame the discussion isn't the answer. Because your opponent isn't going to set there and listen to your long winded academic lecture.

The "key"is to create and then introduce our own descriptive words into the mix; and thus we would the assume ownership and control of the issue being discussed.

[sarasaraseda]

Brother, deconstruction of words that already frame the discussion isn't the answer. Because your opponent isn't going to set there and listen to your long winded academic lecture.

The "key"is to create and then introduce our own descriptive words into the mix; and thus we would the assume ownership and control of the issue being discussed.

Care to elaborate brother, i think we are saying the same thing?
Its a two part process, deconstruct and then offer the correct construct, two parts of the same coin
Perchance i misunderstood.
How would you broach the example of "infidel" in my last post, or any examples to clarify your approach?
If the opponent is not willing to listen to the meanings of the terms he relays, then thats the kind of opponent you say "Peace" to, and leave alone?

[hwood]

Care to elaborate brother, i think we are saying the same thing?
Its a two part process, deconstruct and then offer the correct construct, two parts of the same coin
Perchance i misunderstood.
How would you broach the example of "infidel" in my last post, or any examples to clarify your approach?
If the opponent is not willing to listen to the meanings of the terms he relays, then thats the kind of opponent you say "Peace" to, and leave alone?

No, we are Not saying the same thing.

If you have to explain it; then you have already lost the battle.

[HQTheodore]

No, we are Not saying the same thing.

If you have to explain it; then you have already lost the battle.

While we are the oppressed, one has to explain. When we are ruling then we can enforce more effectively the correct definition?

In your avatar is the Newcommen engine? or is it a Spinning Jenny or the one before the Jenny, name escapes me? Or is it a printing press? i love guessing games