Why does the "liberal media" use the word radical Islam instead of fundamentalist Islam?

Is the word fundamentalist too big for them?





I don't know about you, but when I hear the word radical I think secular, probably godless, egalitarian, socially liberal, left-wing environmentalist/animal rights activist.





Can a group who stones gays and feminists, wants women covered up from head to toe, believes in prayer in the schools, religion in the government, and thinks western popular culture is leading to social decay, be described as radical when the word fundamentalist seems so much more appropriate?

Why does the "liberal media" use the word radical Islam instead of fundamentalist Islam?
No, the word fundamentalist has become too closely associated with Bush. We had to come up with a different term.
Reply:You have a misconception of the word "radical." Radical can apply to many left-wing individuals and causes, but the Left doesn't have the monopoly on the word. Islamists are fundamentalists in some sense and they're also radical. Many of the leaders are highly educated and they employ the use of new technologies and techniques. They're not all living in caves, which is why they pose as much of a threat as they do. They also don't advocate a complete return, although like all totalitarian movements they romanticize a period in the past, a golden period of Islam, that they believe they should recreate in the modern world. So, that's why they get the label of 'radical' and I don't think it's a wholly inappropriate one.
Reply:why dont u worry about u and urs and stop worrying about what they call the Muslims on TV. all Muslims are not crazy killers. not all Muslim cover themselves!!! look at Jordan and Egypt, great examples of keeping there traditions but being modern. leave them alone. sure some of them are nuts but there alot of people that are nuts.
Reply:that's because you are an ignorant. don't blame the "liberal" media for your ignorance. first off using the word "fundamentalists" would be wrong and misleading because the terrorists even though they may be fundamentalists in some way or another, their terror tactics have nothing to do with the fundamentals of their religion. their actions are based on personal gain and satisfaction of their ego.
Reply:Because the two are not interchangeable. As another poster pointed out to me.





Fundamentalist means following the literal dogma.





Radical means not being of the mainstream.





If the mainstream follows the literal dogma, then someone can be radical by acting in a more rational and enlightened way.





In the case of Islam, most (90+%) follow a derivation that does not demand literal adherence to every phrase. The same was most Christians don't follow literal adherence to every command in the new testament.





Because the mainstream (majority) does not follow the doctrine literally, it is "radical" (not mainstream) to do so.





Therefore, when speaking of terrorist being radical or fundamentalist, both terms are appropriate.
Reply:bush is one of the guys who started using the word "radical" to describe our islamic enemies.





I hear the guys and gals on fox news use "radical" also.
Reply:Saying "radical" instead of "fundamentalist" keeps the Christians from getting upset because the Christian right is just as "fundamentalist" as any "radical" islamist. Saying "radical" is a clever way of distancing the craziness of Christian theology from the equally crazy Islam theology. Religious Moderates all tacitly support the so-called "radicals" by supporting the authenticity of the religion's scriptures. It was an important step to rename the level of belief that leads to violence so we wouldn't confuse the desire for righteous Christian butchery with evil Satanic slaughter.
Reply:They are radical because they think their way is the only way and no one else matters. Thats what we call it when muslims think that, when christians think that we call them Mr. President.
Reply:How do you think secular when the next word is the name of a religion? And fundamentalism doesn't imply any sort of violent behavior (After all, we have a lot of fundamentalist Christians here), whereas radical does. So I think you're probably the only one with this problem.





Actually, given your list of the group's beliefs, I think maybe you are talking about fundamentalist Christians, so maybe you're right.
Reply:Two reasons -





Fundamentalism isn't really the right word theologically. A fundamentalist believes in literal translations of religious texts, but that doesn't necessarily lead all fundamentalists to be radical or violent.





The word "radical" means out there - in any direction. You can be a radical liberal, a radical conservative, a radical Muslim, a radical Christian. It's like "rabid" or "hard-core."
Reply:For the same reason one can use radical Christian for fundamental Christian. There is actually a faction of fundamentalism that gets very radical in both religions. They get carried away and go too far with a focus on specific parts of their respective religions rather than considering the religion in general.
Reply:Radical and fundamentalist are not the same. Radicalism is characterized by a plan to overturn existing order, while fundamentalism wishes to return to the basics of a particular belief or way of life.





The "radical Islam" that makes the news is so called because they want to overthrow what they percieve to be corrupt, western influenced governments.





They are also fundameltalist, in that they want to return to the basics of Islam (or their version of it) in the absence of corrupt government, but it is their radicalism that drives their newsworthy actions.





"Radical Islam" is therefore more accurate.





Accuracy in communication, particularly in the media is important, as we can all be sure that we're undestanding the same thing the same way. This is why people use dictionaries (such as you should consult) to ensure that they are understood clearly.