But What About Truth?
First off, let's welcome Nate back to the commenting fold. He argues the term Islamic Terrorist isn't useful. Hmmmm. What shall we call these obviously related groups from AQ to Hamas to Hezbollah to JI to PIJ to EIJ and all of their theoretical and political allies - Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, etc. What can we call this movement other than what it is? The term Islamic Terrorist is useful because it accurately defines what we know to exist better than any other single term for the same thing.
Terrorism alone is not our problem. The IRA does not attack us. Basque Separatists do not have an issue with us. We should not support these groups, but we don't need to actively fight them.
On the other hand, Islamic Terrorism IS our problem. These groups are at war with us, or our allies, or our friends, and always our interests.
We need Muslims on our side, but more importantly, they need us our their side. Islamic Terrorism threatens them the most. We are of secondary concern to them.
Thus, I would argue two-fold, that Islamic Terrorist is a) accurate, which trumps usefulness but is also b) useful.
1 comment:
Well, you are defining useful as what is useful to we Americans. These groups claim to be acting in the name of Islam, so we take them at their word, since that is the logical connection between these terrorist groups.
But even though these terrorists claim to be fighting for justice, emancipation, and traditional virtue, we don't allow them to co-opt these terms for themselves. Even though they consider themselves heroic and courageous, we certainly don't let them have those words. So why if they consider themselves Islamic, do we necessarily have to confirm this self-description?
Take the word "jihad". We in the West keep using that word in a negative sense, but in fact jihad also has a positive connotation.
According to the dictionary, jihad is:
1) a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty
2) a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline
Do we let the fundamentalists have this word? Do we let the fundamentalists fuse war with devotion to Islam, and hand them the word on their own terms? Perhaps by us not using the word in the context of violence, we might help moderate Muslims emphasize the personal nature of the word. And the same might go for "Islamic."
I'll have to think more about this.
Post a Comment