Terrorism explanations via Muslim fundamentalism erase the political roots of militancy

Evidence

Fundamentalism as the cause of terrorism has dominated discussion in the United States since 9/11. This rationale has set the terms of the debate and marginalizes the possibility of serious public discourse. The way in which Muslim fundamentalism is used to explain terrorism erases the complex political history that has led to authoritarian regimes and severe economic disparities. It also erases the ways in which Islamic militancy emerges from politics, not religion, even though it certainly converges with religion. Furthermore, it ignores the strong currents of secularism within Islam and suggests that the only path to democracy in Arab and Muslim countries is via secularism, as if democracy and Islam are incompatible. — Evelyn Alsultany, Arabs and Muslims in the Media, 896

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the broader literature on orientalism and the depoliticization of terrorism discourse — echoes Said’s framing and the media-studies critique of sound-bite simplification. — connects to: Global terrorism actually declined steadily from its 1987-88 peak until 2004 — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 858; Terrorism is framed as irrational fanaticism rather than political response; Terrorism labeling follows political allegiance, not acts of violence — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 413 (+1 more)
• DEEPTHINKING: The core claim — that framing Islamic militancy as religious erases the political history behind it and posits democracy/Islam incompatibility — is a dense, paradigm-shifting argument about how discourse itself forecloses analysis.