Sleepycatz

Of ‘ists’ and ‘isms’

I have been slowly catching up on some of my online reading, and was struck by an apparent argument occurring between Glen Greenwald, Ann Althouse, and others regarding the use of term ‘Christianist’, as a Christian version of the popular usage of ‘Islamist’. I don’t wish to re-hash the entire set of arguments (please read the posts and their links, if you are interested), but in summary the argument is that Althouse and Glen Reynolds, and other conservatives, find the term insulting to Christians, while Greenwald, and other liberals, believe this is hypocrisy. Greenwald sums up his argument thus:

Are Althouse and Reynolds (and their like-minded comrade, Hewitt) really incapable of comprehending it? “Christians” (like “Muslims”) are those who believe in the religion. “Christianists” (like “Islamists”) are those who believe that their religious beliefs ought to shape politics and dictate the law. “Christian fascists” (like “Islamofascists”) are those who believe in the use of violence and terrorism to achieve those goals. The term “Christianist” has nothing to do with violence, only with a desire to compel others to adhere to Christian religious views via the force of politics, state power, and secular law.

Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this to Greenwald, all of you are wrong.

In my younger days, I was a bit of a stickler for using the proper terms for their intended objects - as I grew older I began to appreciate the fluidity of meaning more, and gave most of this habit up. However, there are still instances where the proper definition of a term allows for the more granular subtlety one finds in the real world. Twenty-some years ago when I did my studies in poli-sci, the terms ‘Islamism’ and ‘Islamist’ were not pejorative but referred to a specific political doctrine. The definition was/is that Islamism is a conservative political movement to bring together all Muslims under a single unified Islamic state. Thus, it is a pan-national movement, opposed to nationalistic, or socialist goals. It is pan-national as it seeks to unite, not encumbered by geographic boundaries, but by religious practice. It is conservative in that it supports a rigid social structure and is opposed to market regulation — within the limits if its theological boundaries.

Islamism was nurtured by both the British and American governments throughout the region after WWI, in order to counter pan-arab nationalism, and to deter a Soviet foothold in the Middle East. As I recall, and I am not a Middle East scholar, the acknowledged grandfather of the movement was Jamal al-Afgani, who was directly followed by such luminaries as Hassan al-Banna - one of the fathers of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The term ‘Christianist’ — as a derivation of ‘Islamist’ — cannot not apply to the American conservative Christian movement. The movement, as it exists today, is not pan-christian, but relies strongly upon nationalism and American exceptionalism. The term ‘Christian Nationalist’ does seem to apply well to many American fundamentalist Christians, and most will not strongly deny their desire for a theocratic state; while others will suggest, or even cry out, the need for a theonomic state. But this is not Christianism, as it still relies upon a particular national identity or national mythos at its core.

For those like Reynolds, and their ilk, who seem to use the word ‘Islamist’ the way a petulant child uses a word he believes is naughty, and whose parents are too indulgent to correct him, I would point out that not all terrorists are Islamists, nor are all combatants in Iraq. The PLO, for instance, — which many have named a terrorist organization — is/was more of a nationalist movement then an Islamist one. Men like Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, have shown themselves to be far more nationalistic then pan-Islamic.

One of the great and unfortunate losses in recent years has been the loss of subtlety and meaning. Too many wish to see the world as black or white, while it is inevitably grey. To paraphrase — somewhat ironically: There are more things in heaven and earth, Ms. Althouse, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

This entry was posted by steve on Wednesday, November 29th, 2006 at 3:20 am and is filed under Religion, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.