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

[bnelson44]

You mean other than the fact that they don't refer to themselves by those terms and those terms belay a series of lies designed to undermind our country's willingness to fight the proper foe? But other than that, sure, go ahead, by all means use them.

[bnelson44]

You mean other than the fact that they don't refer to themselves by those terms and those terms belay a series of lies designed to undermind our country's willingness to fight the proper foe? But other than that, sure, go ahead, by all means use them.

[Cleburne]

Allah is Arabic for God; Arab Christians use Allah in their religious language. Islam shares with Christianity and Judaism basic outlines of classical monotheism: God is One, God is without passion, is omnipresent, omniscient, etc. One might extend it further in that all three religions believe in a very specific sort of revelation revealed in written Scripture manifested through the ministry of inspired men.

Thus far Christianity, Judaism, and Islam agree on their conception of God. Is this enough for all three to refer to 'God' and mean the same thing? I think that it would be safe to say that all three share a similar conception that crystalizes in the word 'God,' in a way that is radically different from, say, a Hindu or Buddhist's conception of deity (or lack of such a conception). If a Hindu speaks of 'God' I can be sure he has nothing close to classical monotheism in mind. But if a Muslim or Jew speaks to me of 'God' I can be pretty sure that we share many basic conceptions.

Yet there are still massive differences between our conceptions. I believe, and the Christian faith orthodoxly recieved, says of God that yes He is One, but He is God in Trinity, and that the Second Person of the Trinity has become man. For a Jew or Muslim this is extremely problematic to say the least. But can we still share the term 'God' and imagine ourselves having some common ground in using it?

That goes not only for Muslims, but for Jews and non-Trinitarian Christians: if I speak of God to them are we talking about the same thing? I think the answer is yes and no. It cannot be an unqualified yes, for the non-Christian (yet still monotheist) conception of God is non-Trinitarian, and Trinitarianism is at the very core of the Christian faith and understanding of God. It cannot be sacrificed whatever Episcopelian bishops say. Yet I do not think that I must speak of 'god' when I am refering to Jewish, Islamic, or otherwise non-Trinitarian monotheists: there is enough common ground for us to all speak of God even though we do not mean the exact same thing, when in fact we have very serious and important divergences.

[null and void]

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.'

Yep. That's why a møøselimb coworker of mine strenuously and vocally objected to my "God Bless America" sign that I put in my cubicle ON 9/11!!!

[Chuckster]

Let's just call them "Raghead scumbags" and leave it at that.

[Chuckster]

By the way; I've been wondering. When did "Moslem" become "Muslim" and why?

[null and void]

Uhhh, just a small point:

REAL Prophets climb mountains to be closer to God.

They don't crawl into a hole to listen to the hissings of a Serpent.

It's no accident that møølimbs pray with their faces to the dirt, and their arses pointed at Heaven.

[elli1]

Good article.

[T Ruth]

Insightful post: your #10.

[GOPJ]

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

If they called themselves "Oh wonderful One's - Oh God's Gifts to Mankind" would you call them that? These guys are on the money -- we need to do the defining. Not them.

[Technogeeb]

Allah is Arabic for God

This gets repeated a lot but it isn't true. The Arabic word for god is ilah, not allah. Allah is a proper name, like Jehovah or Zeus, refering to a specific individual rather than a general concept of deity.

Arab Christians use Allah in their religious language

Yes they do; they didn't before Islam gained dominance of the middle eastern regions, though (900 AD or so). Political and cultural domination of a region inevitably results in such contamination of the native population.

Thus far Christianity, Judaism, and Islam agree on their conception of God

I don't agree. Just having a few similar traits (omnipresent, omniscient, etc) doesn't mean the concept is the same, especially when there are numerous traits that are incompatible.

But can we still share the term 'God' and imagine ourselves having some common ground in using it?

Certainly; at least if you don't care what particular deity you happen to be worshipping. If we're only concerned about some vague concept of God and we really know in our rational minds that God doesn't really exist or that our concept of God isn't really accurate and it's all made up anyway, then sure; it's fine. But if God is real; if God actually exists as a person, then I think he would get as annoyed by having people worship an imposter as you or I would if someone stole our wallet and went around pretending to be either of us.

That goes not only for Muslims, but for Jews and non-Trinitarian Christians: if I speak of God to them are we talking about the same thing?

I think your answer of "yes and no" applies here fairly well. It is possible (such as Christians might assert that the Jews believe) to have an incomplete view of God, just as it is possible (as the Jews might assert or Christians might assert over other denominations) to have an erroneous view of God. But in the case of Jews and Christians it is fairly clear that at least the same entity is being discussed. In the case of Islam we're dealing with a different entity altogether.

The problem is that you simply can't ignore the real facts just because a proponent of the religion asserts that you should. The problem is that Islam claims to be an Abrahamic faith, but that Ibrahim actually worshiped this other god named Allah all the time and that the Jews and Christians got it all wrong. Islam makes certain claims that can't possibly be true. Ignoring the religious claims and looking at secular history, we know the Kaaba was a temple for a pantheon of gods (among whom was Allah) and that before Mohammed came along there was no philosophical nor historical connection to the Jewish or Christian faith.

In short, we know Islam is based on lies. Perhaps Judaism and Christianity are also false religions as some atheists might claim, but in their case at least they are internally self-consistent. There is no obvious historical evidence that proves Christianity to be false, but the same cannot be said for Islam. If as a greek I were to destroy the temples of all the other deities of the greek pantheon and assert that Zeus almighty is the only true god, that doesn't mean that Zeus then becomes the same entity as Jehovah or Allah or Dave, and it certainly doesn't mean that I should translate "Dave" as "God" just to placate someone who might think Dave is so great that he should be worshipped as the creator deity.

[GOPJ]

ping

[GOPJ]

ping

[muir_redwoods]

How about we just call them all murderous a$$holes and be clear about it?

Works for me

[caseinpoint]

Let's just call them "dead"--and ASAP

[Cyclopean Squid]

If you want to start calling them Musfidun and their campaigns of destruction hirabah, go right ahead. Let me know how many people understand you. When asked what you mean, say mujahdeen and jihad. Then people will get you.

This article says that we should change the terms we use not for our own benefit, but rather because of connotations in other cultures. If we're talking about using these different terms in propaganda in Muslim countries themselves, fine. But reforming our language here at home is not going to sell.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

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

No it is not. I have been in international sales for 30 years and know that the correct word gets your point across. It would be like you calling yourself a New Yorker and me doing the same. Truth is, to my neighbors I refer to you as a damn yankee, and if I wanted to irritate you, I would call you that to your face.

In politics and war, never let the other guy get in his comfort zone.

[steve-b]

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

These a-holes can call themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't change the facts that the words described in this article to denote criminalty and degeneracy are more correct and appropriate.

Unfortunately, I think it's too late now. It's a pity the PR guys on our side didn't think of this stuff back five years ago.

[Doug Loss]

I think you're missing the point. They refer to us as "crusaders," you know. We don't use or accept that term; they use it to persuade other Muslims to a false understanding of us. Why should we use the terms for them that they use, which terms have positive connotations to the Muslim world? Instead, we should use terms for them that have extremely negative connotations to the Muslims. At worst, using these alternate terms will have no effect. At best, they will draw some Muslims away from the terrorists. I don't understand your objection with this at all. Even if you believe all Muslims are our enemies and must be defeated, why not attempt to sow some discord in their ranks?

[nuconvert]

Okay. That's informative. Anyone with the inclination can call them what these guys suggest.
I'll just call them terrorists and what they practice, terrorism.