They discuss the value of using the term jihadist, and finally decide that terrorist is a better description.
They argue:
IMAGINE if Franklin D. Roosevelt had taken to calling Adolf Hitler the “leader of the National Socialist Aryan patriots” or dubbed Japanese soldiers fighting in World War II as the “defenders of Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.”
...First, to call a terrorist a “jihadist” or “jihadi” effectively puts any campaign against terrorism into the framework of an existential battle between the West and Islam. This feeds into the worldview propagated by Al Qaeda. It also serves to isolate the tens of millions of Muslims who condemn the violence that has been perpetrated in the name of Islam.
Second, these words locate the ideological battle exactly where the extremists want it to be. The terms of discussion are no longer about the murder of innocents in terrorist acts; they are about theology.
Third, when American leaders use this language it sends a confusing message to the Muslim world, showing ignorance on basic issues and possibly even raising doubts about American motives. Why, after all, would we call our enemy a “holy warrior”?
If we want to say what we mean, what terms better describe Qaeda members and other violent extremists? “Muharib” or the more colloquial “hirabi” or “hirabist” would be good places to start. “Hirabah,” the base word, is a term for barbarism or piracy. Unlike “jihad,” which grants honor, “hirabah” brings condemnation; it involves unlawful violence and disorder.
Of course, it’s probably best not to engage in these nuances at all. Which is why American leaders would do best to call terrorists by their rightful name: “terrorists.” The label may seem passé, but terrorism is an internationally recognized word for an internationally recognized crime. If we want to win a war of words, we would do well to choose the ones we use with greater care.
5 comments:
But just how internationally recognized is the term 'terrorist'?
By most accounts, the American invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq should be called a terrorist act since it lacked UN approval. However, most westerners don't see it that way.
Likewise, a Palestinian attack on Jews in occupied territories would be called self-defense while a similar attack inside Israel proper would be called terrorism.
Quite confusing. You are right that adding other terms such as jihad, makes things even more foggy.
I think the word terrorist should be avoided. While theoretically you could construct a definition of "terrorism", and then refer to "terrorists" as people who engage in acts of terrorism, in practice the word is used for irregular armed forces that the writer dislikes.
RB and Ian,
You're right. Terrorist is not a completely suitable term. However, I think the authors are right in suggesting that it is better than Jihadi.
Muslims who engage in violence should not be described in "holy" terms. However, if we enter this debate, we are opening an even bigger can of worms.
I know many people from Basta who refuse to refer to one of their local Amal supporters as "Shaheed." The day he was killed, he was popping pills and spraying his AK wildly.
I don't know the answer, but I think Singer and Noor have a point.
"Militants" is a catch-all phrase. Precisely used it implies someone who resorts to a violent method to achieve their objectives. It is almost morally neutral in itself.
Equally, it doesn't apply easily to government or state-sanctioned violence, which could equally be described as terrorist.
The BBC typically uses the word "militant" when referring to Palestinian militants... I think they do the same when talking about Iraq or Hezbollah combatants against Israel. It seems fairly neutral.
I don't know about that Amal fellow who was killed, but for armed combatants of Lebanese political parties, I thought the word people used was paramilitary.
Post a Comment