When we pick up the newspaper, read a book, watch television, or engage in conversation, we come across the terms "Muslim" and "Islamic" for descriptions of things related to the religion or to its adherents. Often, the two adjectives are used interchangeably as synonyms. They may truly be part-and-parcel of a family of vocabulary in the everyday usage of language. But the question arises as to whether they are one and the same. And here comes the dilemma.

If we fuse the two together, as they often are, we risk adding inappropriate or meaningless terminology and connotations that do not belong to the system of codes, values, ethics, beliefs, rituals, bonds, and understandings Muslims know as "Islam." For instance, the mainstream discourse often refers to a particular kind of illegitimate violence committed by some Muslims against civilians as 'Islamic terrorism.' Muslims would take offense at this characterization because the implication here, deliberately or mistakenly, is that fault lies within Islam itself. Using the phrase "Islamic world" to describe the area of the world where Muslims form geographic majorities presents similar problems. First, it risks associating underdevelopment, conflict/warfare/civil strife, inequality and discrimination, and other negativities or "backwardness" with teachings from Islam or with steadfastness to them. Secondly, it risks excluding, or at the very least marginalizing, the contributions, status, and plights of the diaspora of Muslims residing elsewhere (like in the West).

On the other hand, if we are to make a distinction between the words muslim and Islamic as adjectives, we open ourselves up to another dilemma. We have to decide when and how should one or the other be used. For instance, should we designate "Islamic" for something theoretical, and "muslim" for something practical? If we follow that course, we risk creating a gap between theory and practice Islam may never have intended. After all, every aspect of what Muslims are taught in an Islamic sense is meant to applied, and will have some significance/implication for their present life, the hereafter, or both. But if we don't follow that course, we may risk generalizing all actions of a Muslim as representative of Islam by confusing teachings with individual or group behavior. Then we might conclude that both terms describe neutrality Û neither theory nor practice. But doing so adds unnecessary confusion, gets us nowhere, and may provide Muslims with no reliable means to assess themselves and the state of the Muslim/Islamic part of the world in general. Muslims would also be naturally roused to question, in light of Islamic teachings, whether neutrality in this sense can actually exist.

Many may wonder why all of this should matter. Why should we be concerned about the complexities regarding the invention and use of terms by others, or by ourselves, to describe Islam and Muslims? It matters in a world where the edge over technological advancement, particularly in the area of communication and information, are gained by the very people who find themselves in a more advantageous position to describe Islam and Muslims. Producing terminology is one vital element of shaping the boundaries and contours of what is "acceptable," "traditional," or "mainstream" discourse. In turn, these kinds of discourse are very influential in affecting public opinion, because such discourse is agreed upon, or at least considered very strongly, as "authoritative."

Challenging this "authoritative" discourse means restructuring conventional thinking (commonly-held or the "right" attitudes and ways of discussion), and one finds very few space within its perimeters to do so successfully. The more boundaries and contours of authoritative discourse are shaped by external factors, the more difficult those perimeters become to work with. Consider the conventional use of the terms "fundamentalism" among non-Muslims to describe Muslims/Islam and how it may have completely different connotations to Muslims themselves. Similarly, consider the differences between Non-Muslim and Muslim discourse over the meanings and connotations of the term "jihad."

Certainly the terms "fundamentalism" and "conservative" have to them attached a particular or rigid set of meanings and connotations when they are applied to Islam and Muslim. This situation contrasts deeply with other, more flexible or 'tolerable' variations of meanings and connotations applied elsewhere. A Webster's dictionary defines fundamentalism as "unswerving belief in a set of basic and unalterable principles of a religious or philosophical nature." Regardless of particular creed, such faithfulness and sincerity in a seemingly neutral definition are qualities which nearly all religions and religious leaders encourage their devoted adherents to do as part of everyday life. Yet, in the public view, a Non-Muslim fundamentalist may not represent as a "serious a problem" as would be a 'Muslim fundamentalist.' A curious individual may wonder why an imbalance like this occurs. One convincing answer may be that the association between what is identified as fundamentalism in an Islamic or Muslim sense and violence or backwardness appears to be indisputable in general public discourse, while much more discussions--and even debates--exist to analyze such associations involving other fundamentalisms, or religious devotion. Quoted in a Los Angeles Times article, Executive Director of the Muslim Political Action Committee Salam Al-Marayati stated "When a Christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic or kills a physician, it's an aberration. When a Muslim commits an act of violence, Islam is to blame." In response, one may state that this imbalance exists as a result of the 9/11 tragedy. There is no reason to dispute the fact that 9/11 has created an enormous backlash against Muslims and Islam, perhaps unparalleled in American history. With regard to terminology, however, the characterizations involving Muslim/Islamic fundamentalism have existed long before the attacks. The backlash afterwards served to bring these characterizations MORE out into the open.

As it applies to Muslims and Islam, the term conservative is not exempted from imbalances displayed in public interpretations from a comparative perspective. In a sense, a number of Americans may look at "conservative" Christians, or even "conservative" Jews, in a slightly awkward way. But the public perceptions of the 'conservative' elements of these two communities are, one the whole and by-and-large, those of tolerable differences that contribute to America's diversity. This leeway may not be as readily afforded to what are identified as conservative Muslims. Indeed, some in the American public go so far as to explicitly characterize "moderate" (as opposed to 'conservative') Muslims as those who "don't take the Qur'an seriously." Public support of people who hold such ideas says a lot if even such support may not appear to be direct. The commentator, Dr. James M. Hutchens, is a leader of a group helping to set up an exhibit on Middle East violence at the Simon Wisenthal Center Museum of Tolerance, a nationally recognized cultural and educational institution. (CAIR press release, Museum of Tolerance Urged to Reject Extremist Group, 01/26/2005; and Bus No. 19 Making Controversial Stop, Jewish Journal.

Newspaper articles are tempted to characterize any problems that Muslims may have regarding integration in Western societies as symptomatic of Muslim or Islamic "conservativism." These characterizations suggests that the problem lies, predominantly or exclusively, with "Islam" as a system impeding effective cross-cultural or cross-religion communication. Such talk is as rigid and one-sided as definitions of Muslim 'fundamentalists.' Coverage by the Chicago Tribune of Muslims in its Struggle for the Soul of Islam Series seem to depict many of these diction problems. For example, one article in the Series summarized problems of Muslim integration in Europe, including the banning of the Islamic veil in France, as: "They must decide whether to integrate with Europe or fight back in earnest against official efforts to shape their community." (Staking Out Their Place in Europe, Chicago Tribune, 12/19/2004). In light of the article's coverage, this statement presumes Muslims are placed in an "either/or" position, and that they cannot negotiate their fundamental beliefs/identities with their residence in Western society (Europe), because their basics and identitiesÛamong them conservatismÛare so "different" from others. In the same article, the reporter explains one councilman's decision to support the French ban on veils, adding that: "he heard testimony from teachers and young women who described how young fundamentalists used girls' decisions to wear a veil as leverage to pressure them into adopting a more religious lifestyle" (emphasis added). In the discussion of "liberating" women from male-imposed oppression, it is interesting how the article associates the mainstream understanding of "Islamic fundamentalism" with the phrases 'pressure' and 'more religious.' If we think of 'more religious' as a characteristic of being conservative, we can see how this second point is related to the mainstream analysis of Muslim integration problems. And why such analysis may not be problematical particularly to the context of European society can be deduced from the statements published in an Editors' Note in reference to the article's Series: "Anyone wondering how the struggle for the soul of Islam could play out in America should look to Europe... For the 11th part of this occasional series, a Tribune reporter traveled to a Paris suburb to examine the future that Europe is straining to handle."

The term "jihad" has been reserved as an exclusive designation with a decidedly charged connotation. For example, consider the title of Benjamin Barber's book Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshaping the World. As the title suggests, the book is premised on a critical clash between two cultural universes readily at odds with one another. According to Barber, "McWorld" represents progressive modernity as embodied in Western trends and values, and "jihad" represents retrogressive, or backwards, traditionalism. Carrying the analysis further, the universe of jihad consists of trends that are "tribal, local, fragmentation, centripetal, parochial, emotional, identity driven, tradition, heterogenity" and McWorld consists of opposing traits that are "universal, global, integration, centrifugal, cosmopolitan, cool, market driven, modernity, and homogeneity" (ed. Strada [1999], Through the Global Lens: An Introduction to the Social Sciences, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, pg 359). Indeed, Barber goes so far as to describe jihad as "dogmatic and violent particularism" (9) and as "a kind of animal fear propelled by anxiety in the face of uncertainty and relieved by self-sacrificing zealotry" (215). Even more specific in differentiating between the two universes, Barber states jihad "pursues a bloody politics of identity, McWorld a bloodless economics of profit" (8). Because the struggle of reform and improvement as embodied in jihad is essential to upholding Islamic tenets, Barber's characterizations present problems to Muslims seeking to rectify common misconceptions about the basics of Islam and seeking to publicly abide by them. And while Barber's ideas may represent a small extreme point in the spectrum of American public thought, numerous other writers, commentators, and professionals have been emboldened to present views that seem to be more in line with his. This is occurring alongside the denial of expression to so-called "moderate" figures to present their views, such as the cases of Professor Tariq Ramadan and Yusuf Islam demonstrate.

Nor does the simplification "holy war," used often in print and other media, remedy problems of misconceptions that Muslims and Islam face. Although books and public discussions are beginning to take notice of other considerations of jihad, "holy war," by far, still serves as the predominant operative lens of discourse. Muslims and Islam are still presented in monolithic tones, all of which further threatens to discourage diverse and meaningful input. Indeed, Professor John Esposito of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University concludes:

"The easy path is to view Islam and Islamic revivalism as a threatÛto posit a global pan-Islamic threat, monolithic in nature, a historic enemy whose faith and agenda are diametrically opposed to that of the West... The more difficult path is to move beyond facile stereotypes and readymade images and answers... the tendency of the government and the media to equate Islam and Islamic fundamentalism with radicalism, terrorism, and anti-Westernism seriously hamper our understanding and condition our responses. (The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?; pp. 190-191.)"

Now, picture all of this in an academic setting, such as a public school classroom or a college course. A Muslim could only imagine how difficult and tedious it must be to express his/her viewpoints, if he or she is to do so in a language comprehensible to this environment. What other language would the environment understand, or is most likely to hold as credible, except "authoritative" discourse? But wouldn't the use of this discourse be self-defeating to the efforts of the Muslim seeking to present his or her views forward? The solution? Participate in reshaping the discourse. Sounds a lot easier said than done.