Thursday, July 22, 2010

It's all semantics...

Political science as a study has always been riddled with very serious arguments and debates of rhetoric and semantics. What differentiates a nation from a state from a regime may seem like trivial delineations to some, but in the world of political science the differences are staggering. In the study of international relations, moreover, the differences are not just astounding but can often times be highly offensive and downright hazardous. The 2010 National Security Strategy released by the Obama administration makes apparent efforts to discuss important security issues without using terms such as “Islamic terrorist” or “jihadist,” and acts as an example of an awareness for the impact of semantics in the discussion on terror.

While this shift in linguistics is supported by the regime, opposition can be found in reports released by organizations such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which stress a concern for separating religious motives from acts of terrorism. Recently, the Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog posed the question: “What to call terrorists?and 19 bloggers responded to the question with their varying opinions on the issue. This panel of bloggers and their respective points of views on the matter stirred a curiosity in me; how do you discuss the most recent terrorist activity without mentioning any associated religious ties and motives? How do you define acts of political dissent separate from the religious movements that fuel them?

Using terms like “Muslim terrorist” and “jihadist” is problematic, not only for the incorrect usage of the words Muslim and jihad, but because that would require we call Timothy McVeigh a “Catholic terrorist” or Crusaders from the middle ages “Christian terrorists.” This thought lends itself to consideration of whether or not including religious ties is necessary at all. As blog panelist Herb Silverman titled his blog response “A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist,” conceivably it could be the case that religious motives are not important but instead focus should be placed on effective prevention. Silverman makes the case that once a terrorist has acted out; it’s already too late to understand his or her motives. Apart from the argument that using religious adjectives to describe terrorists is unnecessary, another argument is based on the fact that by using “Islamic terrorist” it can create a perception that this sort of violence is normative for the religion.

Perhaps a complete disregard for religious terms when defining terrorist acts is not the best method. Perhaps, instead, it is necessary to understand the difference between Islam as a religion and Islam as a political ideology—commonly referred to as Islamism, a term rejected by some scholars and replaced with labels such as “activist Islam” or “political Islam.” Nonetheless, a clearer understanding of a definition for terrorism can be reached with a more comprehensive understanding of the differences between the faith itself and the political movements based on teachings of the faith. A terrorist that happens to be a Muslim should not be referred to as a “Muslim terrorist” but a terrorist that follows the political ideologies of Islamism to fortify his terrorist acts can justifiably be defined as an “Islamist terrorist.” This usage of the term “Islamist” should not infuriate Muslims worldwide, it is a valid use of the term and although it is unfortunate that a few Muslims have tarnished the name of Islam with their acts, the fact is that many of these same people act on the behalf of political aims rooted in their distorted form of Islam.

However, the fact of the matter is that not everyone—including myself—fully comprehends the difference between Islam as a religion and the use of Islam as a political ideology and using religious language attached with ‘terrorist’ would be precarious, especially in official reports. So although a complete disregard for religious terms may be replaced with a more nuanced and precise set of terms as a prescription for this problem, it is safer to simply impose a blanket eradication of religious terms.

Labels: , , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well done! I vote for complete removal of the religous terms involved.

2:53 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home