Raymond Ibrahim, editor of the essential Al-Qaeda Reader, in the American Thinker skewers the politically correct wordplay lauded in the New York Times, which I discussed here yesterday. The estimable Ed Morrissey wrote about this at Hot Air last night and I will be saying more about it soon, but in the meantime, Ibrahim, perceptive as always, sheds a great deal of light on this issue.
The terminology we use to describe our enemy in the war on terror matters a lot. A spirited debate is underway among specialists and in the press.An op-ed published Monday in the New York Times entitled "What do you call a Terror(Jihad)ist?", by P.W. Singer and Elina Noor, attempts to defend the recent State Department memo advising government personal to refrain from using theologically-laden terms-"jihadi," "mujahidin," "caliphate," "Islamo-fascism," "salafi," "wahhabi," "ummah"-when describing Islamic radicals and their motives. Instead, generics-"terrorists," "extremists"-should suffice.
The article begins by making a highly flawed analogy. It suggests that when a U.S. president labels al-Qaeda-type radicals "jihadists," that that is akin to referring to Adolf Hitler as "the leader of the National Socialist Aryan patriots." Aside from the need for labeling Hitler and his party as evil, surely such a title was not completely inappropriate when referring to Hitler. (In the next paragraph, the authors themselves relent, using the word "Nazi," an acronym for National Socialist.)
How about the fact that Hitler subscribed to a racist ideology? That fact was hardly taboo to discuss or censored from American discourse. Should we today insist that he killed six million Jews simply because he was an "evil man," without ever once indicating the racial ideology that motivated him?
These questions better reveal the true parallel between Nazi and Islamic fascism, as they both share one common denominator: radical ideology, one unforgiving of the "other," be he infidel or racial inferior. The word "jihadi" is suggestive of ideology no less than "Nazi"; and, just as the latter connotes many intolerant aspects, so too does the Arabic word "jihadi" -- which is precisely why it should not be dropped from the lexicon: it offers precision and context.Next, the article offers us the same tired hackneyed interpretation of jihad (in a tone suggesting that the matter is closed): "The term has long been taken to mean either a quest to find one's faith or an external fight for justice."
This is totally unsatisfactory. Yes, self-professed Suffis (who make up perhaps 5% of the Islamic world) believe that the "greater jihad" is a struggle against the self. As for "an external fight for justice," that is absolutely correct; however, Islamic "justice" is antithetical to 21st century liberal justice. Thus jihad, according to every authoritative Islamic book of exegesis is nothing less than offensive warfare in order to spread sharia law - "Islamic justice" -- around the globe.
The article further insists that we not bring theology into the mix, which is the main reason we are exhorted to not invoke these theologically-laden Arabic terms. According to the article, by using words such as "jihadi" we make it an "existential battle between Islam and the West. The terms of discussion are no longer about the murder of innocents in terrorist acts; they are about theology."
But what alternative is left us? By not bringing theology into the discourse, how can we ever hope to understand what motivates the Islamists? Indeed, to ignore theology, is in many ways to exonerate the murder of innocents -- precisely what the article claims to be guarding against. We are always left with the "Why?" -- why did al-Qaeda strike on 9/11? There are only two answers: religion (ideology) or retaliation (political grievances). If we omit theology entirely, it is then that we fall directly into the Islamist trap, which is to believe that their animus is a product of grievances and frustration at our foreign policies. We become the aggressors, they the victims fighting back any which way they can, and the innocents become mere collateral damage.
In fact the "extremists" -- to rely on the vague lexicon of the NYT ope-ed (for all we know it may be talking about a heavy metal band) -- do not want us to understand the context, the ideological background, but rather to fall for the default alternative, that it is somehow "our" fault.
As someone well acquainted with al-Qaeda's writings and communiqués (see The Al Qaeda Reader), I can confidently state that their messages to the West are markedly different from their messages to fellow Muslims. To Americans, al-Qaeda, just as the U.S. memo recommends, rarely evokes Islamic theology; instead, the discourse is entirely about the Muslim world's political grievances at the hands of the West. Their more clandestine writings to Muslims, conversely, rarely revolve around political grievances, but instead are grounded in Islamic theology and law, and stress how Muslims are commanded to have antipathy for infidels and to constantly be in a state of war with them. Even the 9/11 strikes are justified through the strict rules of Islamic jurisprudence.
The NYT article suggests that,
"If we want to say what we mean, what terms better describe [al] 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."Now, as a native Arabic speaker, I regret to say that usage of these terms -- that is, Americans trying to be at once politically-correct and descriptive, in, of all languages, Arabic -- is, alas, somewhat comedic. I further suspect that Arabs, especially al-Qaeda types, would find it hilarious and consistent with their interpretations of wishy-washy Americans, who go to great lengths to learn a language only to censor themselves and compromise their precision in that same language, all so they can appear the "nice guy."
Which leads to a final point: Arabs and Muslims are not waiting around for Americans or their government -- that is, infidels -- to define Islam for them, much less to confer Islamic legitimacy or condemnation on al-Qaeda through the use of subtle word-games. Calling this or that a "hirabi" or "jihadi" is not about to make any great impression on them, since only an authoritative Islamic entity (e.g., Cairo's al-Azhar university) is qualified to determine such matters. Thus the US government would do well to worry less about which words will better humor the Arab/Muslim world, and worry more about providing its citizenry with accurate and meaningful terminology.
Ironically, those Muslims and Arabs who do embrace moderate Islam agree. In an article entitled "Call radical Islam by its name" appearing in the NY Daily News recently, former jihadist turned reformer Tawfik Hamid, onetime protégé of Ayman Zawahiri, writes the following:
The real way to strengthen moderate Muslims in their fight against the radicals is to spotlight radical teachings and flush out those who believe in them. ....This is especially true in war: define your enemy correctly, and you will rally legitimate allies to your side. Blur what a battle is about and, stuck in the muddle, you are bound to lose.... Calling angina a "common cold" does not change its nature. It only prevents us from taking the necessary steps in treating it, which will only lead to further sickness, and possibly death. Playing word games with jihadists is not only meaningless, but plays right into the hands of the radical Muslim terrorists-who, to be defeated, must first be called by their true name.In short, yes, words do matter. Who those words are directed at matters even more. The world's Muslims aren't holding their breath to hear what sort of Islamic legitimacy the US government is about to confer on al-Qaeda, since it is not for non-Muslims to decide what is and is not Islamic in the first place. Americans, on the other hand, who are still asking "why do they hate us," are in desperate need of understanding. Using accurate terminology is the first step.
"The terminology we use to describe our enemy in the war on terror matters a lot." --Raymond Ibrahim
In accordance with the above statement, here's this:
"You must be able to define your enemy to defeat him, and you must be able to define yourself to defend yourself against him."
General Douglas MacArthur
Supreme Allied Commander,Pacific
I'm glad to know that The NYTimes is so adamant about making the jihadis look bad by not calling them jihadists. Two points here: First, does anyone really believe that the NYTimes really wants anything but appeasement, and second, isn't this just more politically correct nonsense, all the disclaimers to the contrary?
At last! A muslim who calls a spade a spade!!!
Accurately describing the enemy is the first step in defeating him. A muslim "moderate" blows our dhimmi government's PC claims out of the water! Here we see, for the first time, that peaceful muslims are NOT offended by the accurate terms to describe the enemy! They welcome the first step to differenciating and identfying the common enemy. Would that our OWN government have the same kind of common-sense approach!
Harabist: one who stoops to barbarism or piracy to advance their anti-civilizational agenda! Another useful word to add to my vocabulary!
I recommend buying Raymond Ibrahim's book, as well as anything by Robert Spencer, of course. I also recommend the following titles by former Muslims. Buy one copy for yourself, and five more for your friends and family. Consider it an investment in your children's future:
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Muhammad-Ali-Sina/dp/0980994802/
Understanding Muhammad
by Ali Sina
http://www.amazon.com/Defending-West-Critique-Edward-Orientalism/dp/1591024846/
Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism
by Ibn Warraq
http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Islam-Apostates-Speak-Out/dp/1591020689/
Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out
by Ibn Warraq (Editor)
http://www.amazon.com/Global-Jihad-Future-Militant-Islam/dp/0978714121/
Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam
by Patrick Sookhdeo
Oh, and whatever you do, don't buy God's Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215 by David Levering Lewis. It's one of the worst books I have ever read. I would go as far as calling it evil.
Buy this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Islamic-Antisemitism-Sacred-History/dp/1591025540/
The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History
by Andrew G. Bostom (Editor)
I live in the country, and when a skunk is killed on the highway close by, everyone knows it. I composed a song (dedicated to roadkill)for my children that is called "Oh, the skunk lies dead on the road". The last line is: "And the smell won't go away for a least another day, till they scrape the skunk off of the road"
The problem with the current US administration's attempted whitewash of Islamic jihad activity is simple: Call it whatever you want, but it still smells bad and will continue to smell bad until the source of the stench is removed. Stopping jihad will remove the stench, not changing its name.
Sorry for the colloquial wisdom and thank you for your patience with my song.
From article: Which leads to a final point: Arabs and Muslims are not waiting around for Americans or their government -- that is, infidels -- to define Islam for them,
Exactly...You can call a rattlesnake a rose if you like, but you better not get close enough to smell it.
Jihadi's know what they are, who they are, and why they are. The governments trying to redefine these words is worse than laughable, it's a display of gross incompetence. The government is writing the 'manual of how to surrender, and make it look like a strategy'. Maybe the new guy Barack can sit down and work this out with Beasty Boy Ahmadinejad...that is after they solve the health insurance problems of America...
Those words used to describe islamists terrorists are used by the terrorists themselves, what is wrong when you can identify those who want to oppress and or kill you and your way of life.
While we are on the subject of books:
Tarek Fatah of whom Robert and Hugh have written about here
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={67246F93-C21C-4D66
-A96D-828434ABA3F4 }
and here http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019692.php
has finally published his book Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an
Islamic State (Wiley & Sons, Canada). His thesis is that Islamists have
turned a religion into a political enterprise. He details how current
Islamist states such as Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have been a
failure. He then catalogues, at length, the strife and bloodshed, backed by
politicized interpretations of the Qu'ran, that have been the history of
Islam from the day of the death of Mohammed to the present and how they have
destroyed each Muslim civilization in turn. In the present, he explains how,
in the 20th century, the ideas of people like Hasan al-Bana and Mawdudi have
brought about the resurgence of the desire for a Caliphate (and how that
will be a disaster as well). He has excellent sections on sharia and the
attempt to implement it in Canada and who was behind it, on jihad and the
origins of its modern resurgence , and on the hijad as a
religious/devotional symbol put to political ends.
I found the book very informative, especially in the amount of historical
detail (much of which I didn't know), his insider knowledge of Arabic
triumphalism and prejudices towards non-Arab Muslims, and in his tough
arguments to his fellow Muslims to wake up, grow up, and own up to the the
unpleasant parts of their history they would rather ignore.
He does, however, seem to ignore the sayings of the Qu'ran itself which
encourage Islamic imperialism and he holds an idealised view of the
short-lived Golden Ages of Islam (al- Andalus, etc). Despite these cavils, I
recommend his book.
Those who would like to view an extended interview of him can see one here:
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/
Under, Video on the left side of the page, click on May 23: Tarek Fatah
Referring to Adolph Hitler as the Nazi Fuhrer never indicated that we admired him as the esteemed leader of the German people, and referring to killers in the name of Islam as Jihadists does not mean we revere them as "fighters for justice".
from above:
We are always left with the "Why?" -- why did al-Qaeda strike on 9/11? There are only two answers: religion (ideology) or retaliation (political grievances). If we omit theology entirely, it is then that we fall directly into the Islamist trap, which is to believe that their animus is a product of grievances and frustration at our foreign policies. We become the aggressors, they the victims fighting back any which way they can, and the innocents become mere collateral damage.
................................
This is excellent, cogent analysis. When Jihad violence is presented in this way, it is at worst seen as an "overeaction" to legitimate grievance, rather than what it is: striking terror in the hearts of those resistant to Islamic rule.
In the days after 9/11, the cry of "Why do they hate us?" seemed less to me a call for penetrating political analysis than the wail of a battered woman, wondering what she did this time to set off the beating. Very like the battered woman, though, the specifics barely matter--did she fix macaroni and cheese too many times this week? Couldn't she keep the baby quiet?.
The idea--most often floated at the time--was that our presence in Saudi Arabia (while defending that nation from the aggressions of Saddam Hussein, at their request)--was the cause. That is now largely forgotten, and the new reason is Iraq--or is it our continuing support for Israel? Maybe it's because George Bush hasn't done enough to try to create a Palestinian state?
Maybe we're targets of Islamic terrorism because we use insensitive terms like "Islamic terrorism". That must be it.
As long as there are infidels, there must be The Jihad.
Get used to it, NY Times, Ed Morissey, et al.
Jihad-Schmihad!! this is how semantics obnubilate ("muddy the waters") the issue. Lawyers do it all the time to confuse the jury and get criminals off with "reasonable doubt" and a slap on the hand (or "Not Quilty" verdict, e.g., "O.J.")
It's manipulation of the facts. e.g.,"What exactly do you mean by 'oral sex?'"
- William Jefferson Clinton, Deposition, 1998