| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Regarding the whole "Words Matter" issue, and how U.S. governmental agencies are dropping theologically-laden words from the lexicon -- which the Danes are sadly emulating -- some time back, one Peter Singer wrote a NY Times piece arguing that dropping such words in favor of generics, such as "terrorists" or "extremists," is, in fact, a brilliant idea, to which I responded to in American Thinker. Soon thereafter, Erick Stakelbeck interviewed us both for CBN. The transcript follows; the video of the interview is at the CBN link. "Why Words Matter in The War on Terror," by Erick Stakelbeck, for CBN, August 14:
CBNNews.com - Terms like "radical Islamist" and "jihadist" have dominated headlines and speeches since 9/11, with the Bush administration using them frequently to describe America's enemies.Moreover, and as an Arabic speaker, I cannot stress this enough: hearing some pretentious intelligence officer seriously (but with a cute accent) refer to al-Qaeda types as "muharibs" or "hirabis" is nothing short of hilarious. Actually, if they can't use "jihadi," better to just stick to "terrorist," without trying to appear knowledgeable about arcane Arabic definitions based on sharia law. Finally, and as I wrote in my American Thinker piece: "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.But that language may be about to change.
Although Al-Qaeda and other terrorists identify themselves as jihadists -- holy warriors -- some feel we make a mistake by calling them what they call themselves.
"It makes sense why they would want to be called it. It makes no sense why we would want to call them that," said Peter Singer, a national security expert with the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Singer co-wrote a recent New York Times op-ed that argues against the use of words like "jihadist" to describe Islamic terrorists.
"This feeds into their idea that this is a religious war, and it's not.," he said. "They want it to be a war of religions, but we have said very clearly that this is not a war on Islam, it's not Christianity vs. Islam in some way. It's about radicals, it's about extremists who are using violence."
U.S. government agencies agree with Singer's view.[...]
But one native Arabic speaker we talked with says the government has it all wrong.
Islam expert Raymond Ibrahim is author of The Al-Qaeda Reader. It translates previously undeciphered statements by the group's leadership into English.
"The fact is, the Muslim world isn't waiting around holding its breath to hear the U.S. Government -- an infidel entity -- define Islamic terms for them," Ibrahim said. "This seems to me unprecedented. When we fought the Japanese and we fought the Nazis, we called them what they called themselves."
"If Osama bin Laden calls himself a mujahid, we should understand what a mujahid is. And we should understand that that is, in English, a holy warrior who's fighting on behalf of Islam," he said.
"You want to know your enemy: how they think, what they call themselves, what those terms mean," he added.
Singer says Western governments and media should avoid using these theological terms because they could offend Muslims.
He suggests using "muharib" or "hirabist" to describe Al Qaeda. These terms mean "barbarians" or "pirates" in Arabic.
"A term like "hirabi" or "muharib" is a term that's inherently negative within the teachings of the Muslim world," Singer said.
But according to Ibrahim, these terms are not widely used or understood in the Muslim world, while the concept of jihad is well-known and historically prevalent.
"According to Islamic law, offensive jihad--offensive, not just to defend yourself, but offensive, to go out and invade--is as codified and is obilgatory," he said.
To understand this enemy, Ibrahim says, you can't separate its ideology from its theology."You trace it to Islamic doctrine and law, jihad is simply warfare to subjugate the infidel world to Islamic rule."
The debate over language has also reached Capitol Hill. Last month, the House passed an amendment to an intelligence bill that would deny funding for any government measure to ban words like jihadist.
Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra, who introduced the amendment, says governnment agencies shouldn't be hampered by political correctness when fighting the War on Terror.
Posted by Raymond at August 17, 2008 5:15 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"Why do they hate us" is a logical fallacy, it is a no-brainer and shows how far off the reality we are.
Fact is THEY HATE US!
Not for anything we have done, they hate us for being alive, for existing, for not being able to rule over us. Fact is: THEY suck the hatred in with the mothers milk. Hatred is their way of life, it is the essence of Muhammedanism.
They never had a flower power revolution, they haven't (and they will never have) some commie-ratbag professors who sing 'kumbayah' with them in Al Azhar or in their mosques, for them its Islam and nothing but Islam that matters. And Islam teaches to kill infidel and Jews.
We have fruitcakes all around who tell us Muslims could be offended over 'jihadist/mudjaheddin/terrorist etc., the mind boggles.
This is the age of stoopid!
But when was the state department good for anything?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 17, 2008 6:16 PM
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, no matter what you call it. Calling jihad something else doesn't change what it is and is just as silly as calling a duck an airplane.
Posted by: George Mc. at August 17, 2008 6:25 PM
Unstable fellow shot up Jewish Center,
Gentleman from Palestine screaming Allah as blew himself up and those around him,
Theologically active man from Yemen,
Bearded student with pipe bomb,
SUV driver shouting Allah racing down the sidewalk,
Thought to be an Arab male between the age of 17 and 40,
Indignant father arrested for strangling daughter,
Middle Eastern man shouted threats,
Indonesian bomb-maker captured,
Young terrorist found with poison in apartment.
Et cetera.
Would not 'extremist Muslim' or 'Muslim jihadist' or unfortunately 'Muslim' work in all these situations?
We are loosing ground daily and the State Department worries about words, or subtle messages.
Where are the blunt, decidedly unsubtle statements about being with the terrorists or against them, and that the US will act where ever and however she deems in her interests to defend herself from harm, external or domestic?
at August 17, 2008 6:39 PM
Call them what they are: Muslims.
They have no problem calling us infidels.
Posted by: PMK at August 17, 2008 6:47 PM
I wonder what these twits would have called Nazis during WWII?
Jeez...
Posted by: Alaskan at August 17, 2008 6:54 PM
What's maddening about the whole "words matter" debate is that we're so busy trying to not offend Muslims with our words we refuse to take them at their word.
It's almost 7 years since 9/11 and too many people don't know what a Muslim means by the word "peace". Peace to a Muslim means total submission and surrender.
How can it be? How many little kids do Muslims have to shoot in the back before people understand that under Islam there is no such thing as an "innocent" person except under Allah's judgment? Which removes all responsibility from the Muslim doing the killing.
Words do matter. We should stop worrying about our own and start listening to, understanding, and believing theirs.
Posted by: Jaynie59
at August 17, 2008 6:58 PM
More Islam-speak:Polygamist = "Family man"
Female Genital Mutilation = "Sexual Purification"
Amputation, Stoning = "Criminal Justice"
Supremicism = "Dignity"
Honor Killing = "Family Values"
Genocide = "Religious Duty"
Suicide Bomber/Mass Murderer = "Hero"
Freedom of Speech and Thought = "Blasphemy"
Posted by: Xero G at August 17, 2008 7:25 PM
More Islam-speak:Polygamist = "Family man"
Female Genital Mutilation = "Sexual Purification"
Amputation, Stoning = "Criminal Justice"
Supremicism = "Dignity"
Honor Killing = "Restoring Family Values"
Genocide = "Religious Duty"
Suicide Bomber/Mass Murderer = "Hero"
Freedom of Speech and Thought = "Blasphemy"
Posted by: Xero G at August 17, 2008 7:27 PM
While we are discussing about "terminology", they are preparing A-bomb.
Posted by: LazarOfSerbia at August 17, 2008 7:51 PM
I don't know if you guys are aware of this, but Nazism is an 'inner struggle'.
Posted by: Goob at August 17, 2008 8:12 PM
"Crusade" is an inner struggle too.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at August 17, 2008 8:46 PM
"Why do they hate us?"
The reasons are REAL!
They hate us because we are THEE principle impediment to the realization of their aspirations...which are: The destruction of Israel; the overthrow of "apostate" governments in the Muslim world and their replacement with radical, Islamist regimes; resistance to the cultural influences of the infidel world; etc, etc.
In other words, the hate us for very legitimate reasons (from their perspective).
Which means we're doing something right.
Posted by: Cornelius at August 17, 2008 8:52 PM
Is this the same Peter Singer who has argued that killing an infant (not a fetus mind you but an infant) is not the same thing as killing a sentient human being? I believe it is. If so, this guy is completely whacked. Brilliant to be sure, but, as George Orwell observed (I'm paraphrasing), some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals could accept them. In short, this guy is trouble all around.
Posted by: Wellington at August 17, 2008 9:07 PM
Quite right Raymond, this unwillingness to allow the people group in question to define themselves contradicts a basic premise of Cultural Anthropology, i.e. one must not impose one's own understanding of the people group upon that group, one must make the people group's own self-understanding the starting point.
To argue as Mr Singer and Ms Noor do is to make a fundamental error and they are - no doubt to their horror - guilty of the worst kind of western cultural imperialism in following this line of reasoning.
First find out how the group sees itself in order to understand and analyse them. This group sees themselves as warriors of Islam fighting their God's war - in accordance with the expressed will of their God and his prophet - in order to extend the hegemony of Islam across the entire world.
They may be quite wrong, but unless we understand their worldview - and their perfectly reasonable actions given this premise - we will never be able to change them as we are being led by the most superficial of impressions viewed through the lens of our own, inevitably, culturally biased worldview.
Singer and Noor make a classic mistake in this regard.
Posted by: Liam1304 at August 17, 2008 9:09 PM
If islam is not monolithic, it's certainly close enough for government work. A massive B52 strike is the kind of government work that comes to my mind.
Posted by: HotSpur at August 17, 2008 9:30 PM
These elite morons will be the first ones killed when the islamists get their way, the only good thing to happen in a bad situation.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 17, 2008 10:38 PM
Is this the same Peter Singer who has argued that killing an infant (not a fetus mind you but an infant) is not the same thing as killing a sentient human being?
No, not the same one. (I checked because I noted the names, too. Interesting side note, this Peter Singer did get a degree from Princeton, but I don't think the Peters overlapped there.)
Posted by: CJ at August 17, 2008 10:42 PM
CJ: Thanks for the input. So who is this guy? If two different people of the same name and also possessed of a Princeton connection, this is the stuff of fact, not fiction, because you couldn't make this stuff up and be credible. I'd like to know more.
Posted by: Wellington at August 17, 2008 10:50 PM
This Peter Singer fellow is assuming (making an ass out of himself) that there are 'moderate Muslims' when he makes the remark about offending them. They should be offended by what OBL and others have done to their religion. Which they are not, if fact OBL and the others are heroes.
So,when they (the moderate Muslims) start denouncing these acts of barbarianism and slaughter the jihads are doing in the name of Allah then I will worry about offending them. He is projecting that we can influence the hearts and minds of the silent Muslims majority. I don't think we should be worrying about this at this time of the war.
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at August 18, 2008 1:01 AM
At: http://staringattheview.blogspot.com/2008/05/words-and-attitudes.html
I blogged: Last night on Arabic TV two Muslim clerics pointed out that the expressions "al-muslim al-mu'tadil" (moderate Muslim) and "al-muslim al-mutatarrif" (extremist Muslim) do not even exist in Islamic theology but are Western inventions. The Quran and the sunna use no such terms. If you want to classify Muslims according to Islamic thinking, I am aware of two possibilities. The first is to make a distinction between the first Muslims in Mecca (where Islam was weak and propagated by preaching), and the Muslims in Medina (where Islam became strong and spread by jihad). The second is to classify Muslims by how carefully they follow Islamic teachings. Arabic calls these "multizim" (committed) or "ghayr multizim" (non-committed). It is similar to the Western concept of someone being a practicing or non-practicing Christian or an observant or non-observant Jew.
This is a lot more challenging and demands more serious study then merely using Western standards to arbitrarily decide whether a Muslim is moderate or extremist. How many US government or law enforcement officials could prove from the texts of Islam that Usama Bin Ladin is not a good Muslim committed to the teachings of Muhammad? What about Yusuf Al-Qaradawi who uses Islamic history and Quranic texts to justify Palestinian suicide bombings? On what basis do we call them extreme?
at August 18, 2008 1:54 AM
You know, the only good side to this head-in-the-sand mentality, is that it must drive the jihadists crazy. We are not the only ones going crazy here. Think about it.
The jihadists want the world to know that they are fighting for islam. They are soldiers for mohammad and the islamic way of life. They shout this when they begin their attacks. They blow themselves up for mohammad. Yet, the western left doesn't want to give them credit. That must piss them off:
Jihadist: I fight and die for islam!
Canadian politician: No, you don't. You are just a criminal.
Jihadist: What do you mean, I don't. I carry the sword of the prophet, you dog! I fight for islam!
Politician: No, you don't. You are confused about your religion. Otherwise you would never say that.
Jihadist: Confused about islam?! How dare you, you insolent infidel! I am islam! Islam will conquer the world!
Politician: You don't mean to say that. You are just poor and resentful of your poverty.
Jihadist: What?! I come from a good home. My father was a doctor. We made more than you, you pig! I am not poor. I give my life and my riches to Allah!!
Politician: No, you don't. You just did this because you are confused about your new home.
Jihadist: Are you telling me I don't know my own religion! Do you want to die? How dare you insult me like that?
Politician: That is not an insult to you. Your religious beliefs are not apart of your crimes. Never were. You have never commited any acts on behalf of Allah. Allah would never command you to kill the infidel. Allah commands you to love the infidel.
Jihadist: What??! For this you shall die! I will show you the sword of islam! Allah Snackbar!
Jihadist decapitates lefty politician. Head rolls onto the floor.
Jihadist: There, now you have felt the wrath of Allah, the one true God and mohammad was his messenger. And I his messenger.
Decapitated politician's head: No you aren't. You are just confused.
Jihadist: I'm going insane!!! You fools are driving me crazy!! What do I have to do to convince you? I can't be any more radical than I am! What do you want me to do, walk on air? Seriously, I'm almost ready to give up, this is so frustrating. I'm doing everything in my power to be a solider for islam, but you infidel fools won't give me any credit. You disparage my efforts at every turn. I'm at the end of my rope, really. If I don't start getting some respect from you dhimmis, I'm just going to pack things in. I mean c'mon. I'm ready to die for mohammad, and you are just going to brand me a common criminal. Where's the justice in that? You just don't get this jihad thing, do you? I don't know. I feel like giving up.
Decapitated head: What do you mean give up? You never advocated violence on behalf of islam. How can you give up what you never started?
Jihadist: ARRRRRHHHHH!!!
Jihadist plunges dagger into self. Can not live in a society that refuses to acknowledge jihad and the efforts of jihadists.
Maybe the Left has a method to its madness?
Naw, they are not that clever.
Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 13, 2006 8:40 AM
at August 18, 2008 1:56 AM
Let us thank Raymond for continuing to inform about the way things really are.
Who is this Saar idiot? At the very least, on ONE side, this is absolutely a religious war. Regardless of how crazy they are, how absurd or stupid do you have to be to believe that they aren't religious on some level???
I recently came to the shortest, best conclusion about left-type thinkers. The fact is that they don't take religion or related spritual piety seriously. The key to this statement is that they don't take sane, good (metaphysical) believers seriously NOR do they take crazy, evil, harmful believers seriously. The former means nothing except for describing their own rejections of sorts; the latter puts us all in peril.
This terribly irrational, unreasonable, and idiotic idea that all religions are equal keeps rearing its head with its many demonic offshoots. What a shame. Let us continue to dispell these foolish notions and fight the good fight.
Palamas
Posted by: Palamas at August 18, 2008 1:59 AM
Marc-or,
Good one. A variant on "when life hands you a lemon, make some lemonade"?
Posted by: PMK at August 18, 2008 9:56 AM
Jihad is jihad. Read the Qur'an. I don't think that this fellow Singer has............
Posted by: tanstaafl at August 18, 2008 10:07 AM
Pump it UP, Raymond! We need to hear a lot more of you all over the place - you and Bridgitte Gabriel and other Arabic speaking non-Muslims who have been close enough to smell the enemy.
Singer is a moral relativistic coward, and if you watch the video on CBN you'll see a guy named Sgt Erik Saar obfuscate the sitation even further. And he is 'helping the government defend us in the war on terror'? Either he doesn't know what he's talking about or else he does only too well.
The enemy is past the gates, my friends. Beware.
Posted by: rishika at August 18, 2008 10:17 AM
Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 13, 2006 8:40 AM
Posted by: arjun.sevak
Heh. +1
Posted by: rishika at August 18, 2008 10:30 AM
"Moderate Muslim" = "Armchair General". Too cowardly to commit Jihad but more than willing to egg on those that do. Case in point, New Jersey Muslims dancing in the streets on 9/11/01 with the WTC burning in the background. I am on holiday and the internet connection I have is too slow to search for a link right now...
ABS
لن استسلم
Posted by: Drewbenstein at August 18, 2008 11:16 AM
How can it be? How many little kids do Muslims have to shoot in the back before people understand that under Islam there is no such thing as an "innocent" person except under Allah's judgment? Which removes all responsibility from the Muslim doing the killing.
Words do matter. We should stop worrying about our own and start listening to, understanding, and believing theirs.
Posted by: Jaynie59
Viewed from any angle, Islam worships death. It is NOT a religion, but simply a very large and ancient Cult of Death. They prove this daily with their vile disgusting actions.
at August 18, 2008 12:11 PM
Raymond strikes again!
Posted by: traeh at August 18, 2008 9:17 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)