Loosely Interpreted Arabic Terms Can Promote Enemy Ideology

DoD ^ | 6/22/06

[bnelson44]

Loosely Interpreted Arabic Terms Can Promote Enemy Ideology

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

BAGHDAD, June 22, 2006 – The pen is mightier than the sword, and sometimes in the war of words we unwittingly give the advantage to the enemy.

In dealing with Islamic extremists, the West may be giving them the advantage due to cultural ignorance, maintain Dr. Douglas E. Streusand and Army Lt. Col. Harry D. Tunnell IV. The men work at the National Defense University at Fort Lesley J. McNair in Washington, D.C.

The two believe the right words can help fight the global war on terror. "American leaders misuse language to such a degree that they unintentionally wind up promoting the ideology of the groups the United States is fighting," the men wrote in an article titled "Choosing Words Carefully: Language to Help Fight Islamic Terrorism."

A case in point is the term "jihadist." Many leaders use the term jihadist or jihadi as a synonym for Islamic extremist. Jihad has been commonly adapted in English as meaning "holy war." But to Muslims it means much more. In their article, Steusand and Tunnell said in Arabic - the language of the Koran - jihad "literally means striving and generally occurs as part of the expression 'jihad fi sabil illah,' striving in the path of God."

This is a good thing for all Muslims. "Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad thus indicates that we recognize their doctrines and actions as being in the path of God and, for Muslims, legitimate," they wrote. By countering jihadis, the West and moderate Muslims are enemies of true Islam.

The men asked Muslim scholars what the correct term for Islamic extremists would be and they came up with "hirabah." This word specifically refers to those engaged in sinful warfare, warfare contrary to Islamic law. "We should describe the Islamic totalitarian movement as the global hirabah, not the global jihad," they wrote.

Another word constantly misused in the West is mujahdeen. Again, in American dictionaries this word refers to a holy warrior - again a good thing. So calling an al Qaeda terrorist a mujahid legitimizes him.

The correct term for these killers is "mufsidun," Streusand and Tunnell say. This refers to an evil or corrupt person. "There is no moral ambiguity and the specific denotation of corruption carries enormous weight in most of the Islamic world," they wrote.

People can apply other words instead. "Fitna/fattan: fitna literally means temptation or trial, but has come to refer to discord and strife among Muslims; a fattan is a tempter or subversive," they wrote. "Applying these terms to our enemies and their works condemns their current activities as divisive and harmful."

The men also want officials to stop using the term "caliphate" as the goal of al Qaeda and associated groups. The Caliphate came to refer to the successors of the Prophet Mohammed as the political leaders of the Muslim community. "Sunni Muslims traditionally regard the era of the first four caliphs (A.D. 632-661) as an era of just rule," the men wrote. "Accepting our enemies' description of their goal as the restoration of a historical caliphate again validates an aspect of their ideology."

The men point out that an al Qaeda caliphate would not mean the establishment of just rule, but rather a global totalitarian state where women would be treated as chattel, music banned and any kind of difference severely punished. "Anyone who needs a preview of how such a state would act merely has to review the conduct of the Taliban in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2001," they wrote.

The correct term for the al Qaeda goal is global totalitarian state - something no one in the world wants.

Finally, the men urge Westerners to translate Allah into God. Using Allah to refer to God would be like using Jehovah to refer to a Hebrew God. In fact, Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the God of Abraham. Using different names exaggerates the divisions among the religions, the authors say.

The men have launched an education effort. "Our work is an attempt to educate the interagency community about the challenges of communication with Islamic audiences," they wrote in answer to written questions. "Our particular effort is in its infancy, but is showing some level of success."

Scholars at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College use the essay in class, and the Marines are using an earlier version of the essay as part of their lessons-learned Web site. The final version of the essay is on the National Defense University's Center for Strategic Communications Web site.

Related Sites:

Choosing Words Carefully: Language to Help Fight Islamic Terrorism

National Defense University

News Archive

[ElkGroveDan]

This is good stuff. As one who carefully chooses words for a living, I can appreciate their message.

[Cyclopean Squid]

The problem with this is that we get the terms from the terrorists themselves. They call their war a "jihad," they call themselves "mujahdeen."

[JOAT]

Finally, the men urge Westerners to translate Allah into God. Using Allah to refer to God would be like using Jehovah to refer to a Hebrew God. In fact, Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the God of Abraham. Using different names exaggerates the divisions among the religions, the authors say.

The authors may say that, but what they say is wrong.

The 'god' of Islam is not the same God worshipped by Christians or Jews.

Allah is the moon god, chosen by the false prophet from a pantheon of 'gods.'

[Publius6961]

The problem with this is that we get the terms from the terrorists themselves. They call their war a "jihad," they call themselves "mujahdeen."

I have mixed feelings about this whole concept; on the one hand, they can call themselves whatever they want, we don't have to agree to it and call them something else that they can't 'misinterpret'.
On the other hand, I systematically resist having an opponent define the terms of the debate, or the choice of words used.
This is a dilemma for me and I'll have to give it some thought.

[Sometimes A River]

** "Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad thus indicates that we recognize their doctrines and actions as being in the path of God and, for Muslims, legitimate," **

Uh, the Muslims don't care whether we think their religion is "legitimate" or not.

[Sometimes A River]

And we should be calling them Mohammedans.

[sefarkas]

This is a good lesson and should be part of a full course for those on the right-side of center. Repeating the words of the enemy in making a denial or making a point simply reinforces what the enemy is trying to do. How many times have Republican Senators been tricked into saying "... tax cuts for the rich ..."? I'd like to shake the hand of the wit who first described the RAT policy for Iraq as "cut and run." Even the mighty Juan Williams on NPR said " ... cut and run ... " a few times while trying to deny the accusation.

[MHGinTN]

Another problem is the mainstream media who seek to legitimize the enemy as a means to de-ligitimize the current President and his administration and the war against these vermin terrorists.

[Technogeeb]

The correct term for the al Qaeda goal is global totalitarian state - something no one in the world wants.

The article wasn't too bad until it got to here and started lying. If "no one in the world" wanted the Caliphate, then we wouldn't be having this problem in the first place.

Finally, the men urge Westerners to translate Allah into God.

Because if you say something long enough and convince everyone else to adopt your error that makes it true?

Using Allah to refer to God would be like using Jehovah to refer to a Hebrew God.

Using Allah to refer to God would be like using the word margarine to refer to butter.

In fact, Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the God of Abraham

I've never met a Christian who would deny that Jehovah was a name for his God (maybe there are some; I've just never met or heard of them). So if Muslims really do worship the same God, why don't we all just switch to calling Him Jehovah? No? The Muslims don't think Jehovah is His Name? Then maybe the premise that they're all the same God is invalid.

The fact is that the Christians have a God who has an "only begotten Son", and the Muslims have a god that "begets not nor is begotten". If I have a friend named Dave who has a son, and you claim that you know Dave but he is childless, then it is pretty clear that we're not talking about the same guy or one of us really doesn't know Dave very well at all. Simple logic says that the assertion that all the religions worship the same god cannot possibly be true.

The idea that we should adopt Islamic terms might be politically expedient, but there is a price to pay. When we use the term jihad or islamic or whatever only in a positive context, it validates the concept. If we remove any negative connotations to the words, it gives them a purity they do not deserve. The bigger issue that people don't seem to grasp is that this is not a simple localized conflict; Islam is a religious and political ideology that must either be destroyed or be supreme. Coexistence means conflict, and the lack of conflict means that Islam will dominate. If you want to peacefully co-exist with Islam, then you must submit to it.

[penelopesire]

bookmark..good article.

[sageb1]

This is total B.S.

[donmeaker]

Just as Man Boy Love Association choses words, and must not be allowed to get away with it.

It is a child, not a choice.

Killing noncombatants is an atrocity, not a battle.

[sageb1]

Get a load of the DoD's recommendations for Islamic PCism.

[sageb1]

It's very simple, actually. The DoD wants us to differentiate between "good" Islam and "bad" Islam by using terms that will make the terrorists feel ashamed and "outside" of "true" Islam.

[bnelson44]

Actually, that is what I thought. I'm surprised by those who like the story.

[bnelson44]

I doubt this is what the DoD wants. Just an opinion being expressed

[sageb1]

"I doubt this is what the DoD wants. Just an opinion being expressed"

I hope you're right, because the article's recommendations certainly aren't.

[Doug Loss]

It makes sense to me. Why should we refer to them by the terms they prefer? "Hirabah" rather than "jihad" and "mufsidun" rather than "mujahedeen" won't harm us at all, and might eventually draw some Muslims away from the mufsidun. :)

[ClaireSolt]

The English equivalents are unprintable.