A dear sister writes a thoughtful reflection on the powerful association of words to their meanings:
There are a few words that I strongly dislike, primarily
because they lack a single definition and so, are ambiguous in their meanings: jihadist,
islamist, fundamentalist, extremist, and the likes. I believe these are dangerous
words, as it seems they are capable of evoking a range of emotions and
responses, without carrying a definitive definition.
A person who speaks, or even just understands, Arabic
knows the definition of "jihad", a word that stems from the Arabic word
“johd”, meaning effort, and defined as anything that serves as a source of
effort. True, the Holy Quran makes
multiple references to “jihad” as a physical struggle of arms and war, but it
is important to identify this word as one that existed prior to the revelation
of the Quran and encompasses and means more than its Quranic reference and
definition. Nowadays, the word jihadist
does not seem to encompass everyone who exhibits any form of effort, else
we would all be labeled jihadists.
What is an islamist? If it is, at it appears,
a person who follows the religion of Islam, this would make the word islamist
synonymous to the word Muslim. So, when I use the word islamist to
describe someone, and not myself, a Muslim, I may unintentionally be implying:
a) I am a non-islamist, which
sounds like I'm either not Muslim or oppose Islam, or both
b) The person I am identifying as an islamist is the single
and proper representation of Islam as a religion and Muslims as followers of
that religion.
Somewhat symbolic is the fact that as I write this
opinion piece (this is all my opinion, not to be taken as concrete truth or
fact), Microsoft Word has underlined in red the word islamist, warning
me of my grammatical error. Apparently,
I should be capitalizing the word islamist as I would Islam. Word provides no synonyms to the word, and I personally
refuse to capitalize a word so ambiguous in its meaning. Instead I will italicize all my references to
the words for which I am seeking definitions.
Fundamentalist and extremist
are dangerous words in a different way.
The dictionary definition of fundamental reads: “serving as, or being
an essential part of … being an original or primary source”. When we refer to someone as fundamental, we
are identifying them as true and correct, in fact, exceptionally true and
correct. Unfortunately, I have seen this
word used to describe something or someone that is in essence incorrect. Even more, the fundamental teachings and
studies of Islamic science, in Arabic “Aqeedah” revolve primarily around faith,
belief, and principles, not religious rituals and practices. Knowing this, it becomes ironic to identify
today’s religious fundamentalists as those that are more prominently
opinionated and vocal regarding religious action-based obligations as opposed
to thought-based obligations.
Identifying the ambiguity of the word extremist
is even simpler. In referencing this
word, do we consider how far off from moderate and balanced an extremist of
anything is? I would answer no, seeing
as how if we did, a religion would not be associated with its extremist
believers more often than anyone else.
Even more, I think we need to question more often than we do at what
point a person, belief, or stance is so “extreme” that it becomes different. To
me, there is great irony in the fact that a strong fundamental foundation is
required to develop the solid strength of anything – from physical structures to
fluency in language
Words are very powerful as they often carry meanings
much heavier than their dictionary definitions.
This is why language is used to make things either beautiful or ugly –
often more beautiful or uglier than they actually are. I pray that we are all able to consider the
adequacy and meanings of the words we speak, hear, and read so as to appreciate
the power of words and master ability to understand and manipulate them
properly.