Motivated by her faith, she was a powerful advocate for radical political and social change. Upon meeting her, President Abraham Lincoln reportedly said, "So this is the little lady who made this big war."
Was Harriet Beecher Stowe a Christianist?
At this year's National Prayer Breakfast, President Barack Obama said his policies were grounded in his Christian beliefs. In a 2008 speech, former GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum said America was in the middle of a spiritual war in which "Satan has his sights on the United States of America."
Are Obama and/or Santorum Christianists?
The answers to those questions would depend on how the term is defined. But it is unlikely you will hear any Christian politician or activist referred to in that way.
What American and western audiences are increasingly hearing, however, since the political and social upheaval that accompanied the Arab spring, is the term Islamist.
Muslims already face significant prejudice in the U.S.: 43 percent of Muslims in a 2011 Pew Forum survey reported experiences with intolerance or discrimination in the past year. And now there is growing concern that the label that was once welcomed by some as an alternative to more pejorative terms such as Islamic fundamentalist may itself be more a source of stereotyping than understanding.
"I used to like it [Islamist] because I thought it represented a broad term that represented those who believe Islam should have a role in society," said University of Kentucky researcher Ihsan Bagby, who led the U.S. Mosque Survey 2011. "But it's been used so much in the media for a little while now to conjure up militant, extremist, radical" imagery.
A larger question is whether the term still holds a coherent meaning for general audiences.
"Right now, it's confusing," Bagby said. "Who is an Islamist?"
An Evolving Term
The modern use of the term Islamist is a Western creation, but it was adopted by many with the intent of providing a more accurate label for Muslims seeking to integrate their faith into public life.
In the wake of the Iranian revolution, the term Islamic fundamentalism gained currency, Martin Kramer noted in a comprehensive 2003 article in the Middle East Quarterly. "Journalists, ever on the lookout for a shorthand way to reference things new and unfamiliar, gravitated toward the term fundamentalism," he wrote.
Against that backdrop, the term Islamist gained increasing favor as a more accurate alternative that was designed to encompass the wide range of ways Muslims sought to participate in the civic arena.
That didn't happen. As Kramer noted back in 2003, "To all intents and purposes, Islamic fundamentalism and Islamism have become synonyms in contemporary American usage."
Since the 9/11 attacks, the term has often acquired a "quasi-criminal connotation," according to The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. "In Western mainstream media, 'Islamists' are those who want to establish, preferably though violent means, an 'Islamic state,'" the encyclopedia said.
Bridging The Gap
The reality, many observers say, is far more complex. Like individuals from other religious traditions, Islamic activists have differing interpretations of sacred texts, varying ideas of religion-state relations and complex motives that can have as much or more to do with historical, cultural, economic and political factors as religious considerations.
"The use of the term Islamist does not capture the phenomena that is quite heterogeneous," said sociologist Mansoor Moaddel of Eastern Michigan University. "It is not a good term."
In his own interviews, for example, Moaddel has found that, "In some respects, Mr. Santorum is more extremist" than leading figures of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, who today talk relatively less about Islamic law than about having to face the challenges of economic development and cutting back on pollution.
Overall, most Muslim believers want religious principles and democratic values to coexist, John Esposito, a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University, said in a paper for the Association of Religion Data Archives. Esposito explored Gallup Poll data from 2001-2007, encompassing a survey sample including more than 90 percent of the world's Muslims.
Significant majorities of Muslims in many countries said religious leaders should play no direct role in legislation, foreign policy or restricting freedom of the press. Citizens in countries in which Muslims are a majority said they want greater political freedoms and rule of law, Esposito said.
In the United States, Pew surveys have found 63 percent of Muslims see no conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society. Sixty-four percent of U.S. Christians see no conflict between being a devout Christian and living in a modern society.
So what is the solution to a more accurate portrayal of Muslims who believe the values of their faith deserve a place in the public square?
For starters, it is not to place an undue focus on the violence associated with "what has been termed Islamist or radical expressions" of faith, Azim Nanji said in the Encyclopedia of Religion, Second Edition.
"While their relevance to contemporary politics and current affairs cannot be dismissed," Nanji said, "it would be erroneous and limiting to make it the primary expression of Islam in the modern world."
Scholars and journalists are able to describe the particular relation between religion and politics among non-Muslim individuals and groups without a shorthand term adding a suffix to the faith of the activists.
The question now becomes: Is it time to reconsider the term Islamist?
David Briggs writes the Ahead of the Trend column for the Association of Religion Data Archives.
Follow David Briggs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ReligionData
Their definitions are fluid and changes all the time.
Some poorly knowledgeable and so-called Muslims use them carelessly to brush aside those who see Islam in a different way and for fear-mongering, as was done against the creators of a Canadian comedy series, Little Mosque on the Prairie.
There was a time, the terms "Muhammadans" and "Muhammadanism" were coined.
They were politically manipulated too.
There is a group of apolitical Muslims called, The Tablighis.
Some even call THEM "Islamists", which is laughable.
As a person, who works with Islamophobia and other forms of racism, I find such terminology as offensive and loaded. All these so-called Islamist parties have their own names and I guess, we owe them the courteously to be fair.
It is also thought provoking that democratically elected parties and leaders such as Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and Egyptian President Mursi are also being constantly dubbed as Islamist just because they wish to be fair, just and serve all the people.
The problem with the term Islamist is that no Arab and other Muslim
Scholars have ever used this term, which has become a substitute for the word, anti-western fundamentalist or worst a militant person, who hates the West.
Some say that this term was invented by Neo-cons in nineties for special ideological reasons.
I however wish to ask you; Why do all western intellectuals have started using the term; Islamist for religious parties and why there is such a complete lack of overview and impartiality on the part of western academics, media and politicians.
Interesting enough, Obama, Blair and Bush as well as many other western leaders constantly refer to themselves as Christians with being called Christianist.
But in a region of the world where over 30% of respondants to the best Pew survey available supported acts defined as terrorism (suicide bombing, kidnapping) or violations of human rights (stoning of homosexuals, violence towards unveiled women), what are the rest of us supposed to think? Where is the strong backlash from the Muslim world? Where are the counter protests to Anjem Choudary and his band of blackshirts in London? Muslims are notoriously silent when their neighbors shout jihad and make threats against the very governments who subsidize their nations' existence.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf
While the majority Muslims don't practice their faith in a violent manner, the tacit approval of those who do and the inciteful, proscriptive commands of the Quran show Islam to be a medieval, ignorant belief system, promoted by those who would watch the world burn while praising their bloody god. We must be intolerant of intolerance, as Karl Popper would say, and Islam, at least the fundamentalist stripe, is something to not tolerate.
If you ever have the chance to visit Iraq, I deplore you to go and visit it, see the damage that THIS country and the US has done and you will come back and tell me that the 7/7 is a drop in the ocean compared to the damage in Iraq.
Almost all of them were Muslims killed by other Muslims. Most of the rest were Christians killed by Muslims.
http://www.thelocal.se/40866/20120516/
Six out of ten mosques in Sweden gave women advice about how to deal with spousal abuse and polygamy that contradicted Swedish law, a media investigation has revealed.
Salafi influence.
http://www.loveforpakistan.com/page/alrahman-garden
An estimated US$45 billion has been spent by the Saudi Arabian government financing mosques and Islamic schools in foreign countries. Ain al-Yaqeen, a Saudi newspaper, reported in 2002 that Saudi funds may have contributed to building as many as 1,500 mosques and 2,000 other Islamic centers.
1.6 billion is 22% of the world's population. Let's round down to 20% to account for those Muslims living in a non-Islamic state.
That's not a small percentage at all. In fact (correct me if I'm wrong) it is the biggest percentage of any religion in the world.
"Sad and Unfortunate Misunderstanders of the Peaceful Nature of True Islam"
I think Robert Spenser has the copyright on something like this.
Ideological soul mates to core............albeit religious rivals.
frankly I suspect when the rages about Islamists it is jealousy because the Islamist get their theocracy.
---
I'm sure there are some Christian dominionists who look at Islamic states with some sort of envy, and even perverse admiration.
But there are lots of us that don't. We're people who cherish the idea (and admittedly imperfect implementation) of the great experiment begun by our (imperfect) founding fathers.
This is an article that I think every news organization, pundit and policy maker should read and yes it is time that there is a broad and public discussion to redefine Islamist.
There is another group, called Kharijites, which date from just after the Prophet Mohammed. They believed that they were the only true Muslims, and consequently they had not only a right but a duty to kill the 'false' Muslims. These people are today called 'Islamist' but this is seriously misleading. Apart from anything else, they do not obey the rules in the Qur'an, nor will they submit to God.
The Qur'an lays down rules on modesty. Women must cover themselves, and men must look away. What then of the so-called '19 Martyrs' who spent the night before at a strip joint?
These people should be called Kharijites, not Muslims or Islamists. That it what they are.
Besides, these people were better in many ways; they were the first to suggest that any Muslim could become the caliph and women should be allowed to become Imams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharijites
"The differences between the Sunni, Shiʿa, and the Kharijites are the following:
"Sunni Muslims believe that as a rightly guided Caliph, Ali's decisions did not justify any form of sedition.
"Shi'a Muslims believe that the imaamate (leadership) was the right of Ali, and the rule of the first three Rashidun caliphs (Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Umar bin al-Khattab, and Uthman ibn Affan) was unlawful.
"Kharijites insist that any Muslim could be a leader of the Muslim community and on the right to revolt against any ruler who deviated from their interpretation of Islam.
"One of the early Kharijite groups was the Harūriyya; it was notable for many reasons, among which was its ruling on the permissibility of women Imāms and that a Harūrī, Abd-al-Rahman ibn Muljam, was the assassin of Caliph Alī."
If the above commentor does not know the history of AMAWI and how they becoame a member of the Islamic community...andthe Arabic seniority traditional laws is the prevailing status in old countries, it was perfectly acceptable to have ABU BAKR, OMAR and OSMAN (OTHMAN) and Ali the Sword of Islam the carrier of ZULFIKAR. s their Caliph. Shia knows that well If Imam Hassan and Hussein were killed in the desert killed by who all Sunnis? Suggets read the life of the last Prophet and learn....
It also serves to help certain politicians ambition by using the word Islamist in the context of "creeping Shari'ah" will soon be imposed on Americans and Muslims must be prevented from building Islamic center throughout the U.S.
Without history or context, the word creates a siege mentality in which 'we' need to guard against 'them (Muslims). Ironic, the word Islamist is concocted by the the west and imposed on Muslims, since there is no such root word to be found in classical Arabic.
"The term Islamism is considered to have first begun to acquire its contemporary connotations in French academia between the late 1970s and late 1980s. From French, it began to migrate to the English language in the mid-1980s, and in recent years has largely displaced the term Islamic fundamentalism in academic circles."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
----------------
Incidentally, I agree with you (with reservations about your proficiency in "classical Arabic").
Indeed, many have pointed out that political ambition, together with hostility toward unbelievers does not need another name, because it is simply Islam!
Nonetheless, there are some who have rejected everything but the Qur'an, disavowed armed jihad, and accepted the nationalities of their countries of residence. It is for their sake that we have agreed to separate Islam and Islamism -- the former being a personal faith.
"O humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know and deal with each other in kindness (not that you may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God (is he who is) the most righteous of you, and God is Knower, Aware." Qur'an, 49:13.
Why not, if you wish to.
However it is important to continue to maintain a certain distance between Islam and Islamism. You could just as well suggest the creation of an additional clarifying term. How about, Muslimists, for those who practice Islamism?
Yes.
Oppose both.
Entirely disingenuous.
Stowe and others were not acting on a political basis to advance the supremacy of the religion and were not advocating for a religious hegemony...which is what "Islamists" do.
The formal definitions of "Islamism" encompass those who advocate for the strict interpretation of the religion and a reordering of society based on religious law.
Church attendance has diminished significantly and there are more converts to other religions (ie-paganism, wicca, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism) and more who declare themselves atheist, agnostic or spiritual but not religious. That means we don't have a Christian majority approach to everything. We still have politicians who try to make laws (ie- gay marriage) based on the Bible, but they are usually challenged now when they make claims that "we are a Christian country based on Christian values".
Maybe in the Bible Belt, that still holds true, but most people use their hearts not their Bibles to make laws now (except all the states that are trying to do things like pass laws that make it illegal to be homeless!)
Peace
The difference I was trying to point out is there's no law book that says, "Christian governments must put in place x, y, and z." No selling beer on Sundays was something certain Christians thought a good idea but there is no equivalent to Shariah Law manuals that mandate Christian governments impose this. Baptists may not like alcohol but theres no mandate for them to pass laws. Sometimes they took it upon themselves to do that, other times not. So Islamism is a comprehensive political philosophy that calls for specific laws, whereas defining "Christianism" would be nearly impossible since liberal and conservative, Mainline and Evangelical, Protestant and Catholic, would each have different visions for Christian-based laws.
Pick up a Shariah book of fiqh from any of the four Madhabs. They have requirements for laws that must be followed in the community and specific punishments (lashes, crucifixion, amputations) for each circumstance.
Lastly, I have no idea what youre talking about on the Bible influencing laws banning homelessness. Is there a certain verse youre thinking of? Jesus asked for charity and mercy on the poor so religious influence has actually had a huge impact on creating homeless shelters, food banks, soup kitchens.
---------------------------
Catholic Canon law gets pretty specific. Their legal system is spelled out enough detail that it requires advanced studies and they need their own lawyers. But even if that weren't the case, I think you are making a distinction without much of a difference. There difference between trying to enforce a large body of law or a single law on those who don't believe in it is primarily a matter of degree.
There is no "Christianist" movement based on these 7 principles that could be easily defined. You have Libertarians, Conservatives and Liberals each claiming to follow Catholic Social Teaching to its logical extent. Those are the political movements, and all of them have members who are not Catholic but find other foundations for seeking the "dignity of the human person." If the Catholics (or Baptists, Methodists) put out a book similar to a Shariah Law manual with an entire political system of each area of life and what laws and punishments should be implemented, then you could call that movement a political Christianist movement, but for now the term would be useless since it would be so vague. Islamist is not a vague term. It refers to those who want to apply the Shariah to government and is a clearly identifiable group in many countries.