Aref Assaf

Words that shape attitudes, part II

April 29, 2008

You may recall my op-ed where I welcomed the absence of often used term "Islamic terrorism" in a front page article about the FBI's work in NJ. We now  have another occasion to celebrate albeit temporarily. Last week, the Associated Press revealed an internal memo currently being circulated among government agencies which directs government officials and diplomatic staff to consider the implications of using "Islamic" language when discussing terrorism-related issues. SEE: "'Jihadist' Booted from Government Lexicon" (Associated Press)

We strongly support a nuanced approach towards the lexicon of terrorism emanating from the United States government and media. It is essential that various elements of the government recognize the importance of delinking Islam with terrorism. Furthermore, using Islamic language to describe terrorists falsely bolsters their religious credibility among the very people we most need -- the majority of mainstream Muslims around the world.

The fact that the government agencies are implementing such recommendations in their communications is a victory for constructive engagement with the Muslim American community. Implementing the recommendations, as they are described in media reports, would serve as a powerful tool in isolating the terrorists.

According to the article: 

Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. Lingo like "Islamo-fascism" is out, too.

The reason: Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.

For example, while Americans may understand "jihad" to mean "holy war," it is in fact a broader Islamic concept of the struggle to do good, says the guidance prepared for diplomats and other officials tasked with explaining the war on terror to the public. Similarly, "mujahedeen," which means those engaged in jihad, must be seen in its broader context. 

U.S. officials may be "unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims," says a Homeland Security report. It's entitled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims."

The memo, originally prepared in March by the Extremist Messaging Branch at the National Counter Terrorism Center, was approved for diplomatic use this week by the State Department and will be distributed to all U.S. embassies.

So, if "jihadist" and "mujahedeen" are off the table, what do we call these violent criminals? "Violent extremist" or simply "terrorist", according to the report, a decision that would deny them any level of legitimacy. We applaud the Department of Homeland Security and National Counter Terrorism Center for effectively seeking to avoid ill-defined and offensive terminology.