Timothy Garton Ash is probably right to we concerned about the connotative effects of using the word 'islam' in compound words and phrases referring to certain terrorists. He highlights the IRA and the community it was/is set within for comparison, helpfully. So, "'Al-Qaida' won't do as the functional equivalent of 'the IRA' - not on its own anyway. We need a wider term to describe the kind of violent extremists who perpetrated the London and Madrid bombings. Counter-terrorism experts talk carefully of 'al-Qaida-inspired' violence, but that's too complicated for everyday use, as are alternative suggestions such as 'violent Muslim extremists' or 'modern Islamic militancy'. We need a simpler shorthand."
Helooks as the current contender 'islamofascist' and 'islamist' (the latter is the one I have tended to go for, admittedly). The former has difficulties on the hook up with statehood currently. The latter, however, does tend to be used by 'serious analysts'. However, while most of the terrorists we are concerned with here are indeed Islamists, not all Islamists are terrorists.
So what would he propose? "The best answer I have found so far is "jihadists", especially in the form "jihadist extremists" or "jihadist terrorists". I know that "jihad" can also be construed as peaceful spiritual struggle, but the Muslim opinion-leaders that I have consulted seem ready to accept this usage. It places a clear demarcation line between ordinary Muslims, and even non-violent political Islamists, on the one hand, and the dealers in death on the other - yet it does not obscure the connection to their religion. In fact, it makes it clearer than either of the alternative terms. Jihad, holy war, is precisely what the suicide bombers tell us - in their pre-murder valedictory messages - that they were proudly engaged upon."
So I'm probably going to adopt this usage, which is one I have used on this blog from time to time. I'm inclined towards the form 'jihadi[st] terrorist' to be clearer that I recognise some usage of the term 'jihad' to be functionally equivalent to the way that many Christians may use terms such as 'spiritual warfare' or 'fighting the world, sin and the devil'.
I may have to alter my labels though
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | In identifying those trying to kill us, we should choose our words carefully:
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
No comments:
Post a Comment