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

[Redcloak]

I still like "Islamikazi" as an alternative to "Jihadi".

[DManA]

I suggest the best term for Islamic extremists is "Swine" or maybe "Pig Lover". No chance of being misunderstood by Muslims with that terminology.

[Cyclopean Squid]

Yes, that's a good way of articulating how I feel. See my post 36.

[Salem]

It is important to understand the U.S. Government is in the grip of political correctness. This document is further proof of that. Until the majority Christian culture (our Judeo/Christian heritage) prevails again in impacting the world view of our cultural, political, and military institutions, this nonsense of futilely trying to placate the implacable Muslims will continue.

That Allah is not God has been commented on extensively. The very characteristics of the living God revealed in the Bible are at complete variance with the god revealed in the Koran.

Friend and associate "Steve Omega" commented in depth on the inevitable screwed-up thinking generated by the cult aspects and rote learning of Islam and the Koran—and foundational to the conflict we see in the world today.

See Technogeeb's comments at 10 and 31 on this thread. Insightful commentary.

---

AMERICA AT WAR
At Salem the Soldier's Homepage ~
Honored member of FReeper Leapfrog's "Enemy of Islam" list.
Islam, a Religion of Peace®? Some links...  by backhoe
Translated Pre-War IRAQ Documents  by jveritas
Mohammed, The Mad Poet Quoted....  by PsyOp
One FReeper On The Line  by SNOWFLAKE
The Clash of Ideologies - A Review

[sageb1]

I understand what you are saying, but these people don't behave rationally. Or like international businessmen. Americans trying to shame them using the "correct word," will only enrage them more and cause more sectarian fighting. IMO, of course.

Damned Yankee from NY, Sage ;)

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

I understand what you are saying, but I do not take it that we are trying to do anything to the terrorist. It's the general population we are trying to influence with our words.

BTW I lived three years in Whitestone, Queens, NY, NY. Y'all aren't so bad ....

[GladesGuru]

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

That they do. And the goobers in the gooberment say "We are from the government and we are here to help you."

Come to think of it, isn't the sentence above a very old joke?

The article's authors have raised very inmortant specific word choice points. Wouldn't it be a good thing if we FReepers began using those terms?

[sageb1]

"BTW I lived three years in Whitestone, Queens, NY, NY. Y'all aren't so bad .."

lol! Neither are "you guys." By the way, I do subscribe to the idea that a Southerner should never trust anyone who doesn't know the lyrics to Dixie and who doesn't stand when it's played. No Northerner should trust someone like that either.

Because it came from the DoD, I was thinking more along the lines of recommendations for the military. I certainly could be wrong.

[Romanov]

"the expression 'jihad fi sabil illah,' striving in the path of God."

Isn't that the same as saying you're on a "crusade"???

[FARS]

"Mohammedans" is the name and connotation used for centuries by the British to describe those who follow Islam as a religion, similar in a way to Chrisitians denoting followers of Christ. American English changed many words. As have the immigrants from around the world who have now created a virtual new language even in Great britain.

[Cleburne]

I would offer to you that Islam is, in some respects, a heresy of Christianity. This is the line taken by St. John of Damascus, one of the earliest Christian theologians to confront Islam. In his polemics on Islam he makes no contentions that he considers it a vile heresy; however, he refers to Mohammed speaking of 'God,' just as he would refer to Jews or non-Trinitarians as speaking about God: it is that their perception of God is flawed. It is as if there were a man- A.- to whom we both refered. I know A. quite well and describe him accurately; you describe him with some correct details, some incorrect, but we are still refering to the same person, even though your perception of him is flawed. You are still in error. The true relativist would say that it doesn't matter what anyone says about A. because either A. doesn't really exist or all our words about A. are merely relative, hinged upon our separate, subjective experiences of A.

Certainly, there are extremely important differences in the way a Christian or Muslim or Jew speaks about God, but I still contend that when we are talking about God we have a concept that shares much common ground. This does not somehow negate the absolute value of Christianity's truth claims, anymore than saying that certain tenets of Buddhist ethics have much in common with the Gospels.

Also, I would argue that Islam developed within the milieu of Christianity and Judaism. Mohammed would have a good deal of exposure to Jewish communties established in the Arabian Penninsula, as well as some Arab tribes that had converted to Christianity. Certainly, there are strong pre-Islamic Arabic pagan influences as well, but the ideas of Mohammed and the content of the Koran are self-consciously within the monotheist tradition.

I understand the sensitivity of this subject, particularly in a day and age in which many wish to reduce all differences of religion to preference and differences in experience, culture, etc: basically to say that everyone is right (which is to say none of it matters because it's all hocus pocus anyway). But one does not have to deny truth value to all other systems in order to uphold the absolute truth value of Christianity. I can sat that Jews and Muslims worship God but in a flawed and deficient manner (a very politically incorrect thing to say!) without denying their need for the fullness of revelation in Christ.

[FARS]

"Moslem" to "Muslim" - the latter is the Arabic/ Pakistani English spelling version found in their press media.

[FARS]

Thanks for the ping, much appreciated.

[attiladhun2]

My theory about Moozies praying with their "arses pointed at Heaven" has to do with the now long forgotten significance of sexually explicit rituals in pre-Islamic pagan worship. These pagans saw from animal behavior that the dominant members of the herd (both male and female) mounted their subordinates. I believe this sticking of butts in the air was a ritual inviting of the moon-deity to mount the worshipper, and in so doing, the worshipper would be showing his/her subservience. This is verified by similar rituals among other primitive and ancient peoples.

[FARS]

Islamikazi - good word. Note to adopt for myself and pass on to Alan to use on his http://www.antimullah.com website

[piasa]

** "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," **

That's why my prefered term is 'terrorists.'

[FARS]

Best put-down yet! Good one. Reminds me of chimps "presenting".

[attiladhun2]

That Allah was the lunar deity of the pre-Islamic Arabs is proven by the fact that the Sungoddess was referred to as Allat, which is simply the feminine of Allah. Furthermore, the Kaaba at Mecca was not the only such structure in ancient Arabia. There were seven such structures in different parts of the country each dedicated to one of the seven "planets".
I like what you said about Islam being based on historical faslehoods. It denies the crucifixion of Jesus, which nearly every historian worth his salt knows is an undeniable historical fact. Islam denies that there was a temple on the Mt. Zion. Josephus and a host of other ancient historians mention such a structure. The Quran confuses Egytian Pharoahs with Persian kings.
Islam is like the society of Orwell's 1984. The ulama is like the Ministry of Truth with its Memory Hole. In fact, Islam is more like the philosophy of Big Brother than either Communism or Facism.

[attiladhun2]

Thanx. Also for your example. I remember that from anthro. Chimps defuse a hostile dominate member by inviting him for a "ride". Verifies what I am saying. Islam is nothing more than the unlikely marriage of heretical Christianity with Arabic idolatry. (BTW, this article is nothing but PC horseflop.)

[Technogeeb]

I would offer to you that Islam is, in some respects, a heresy of Christianity.

In some respects, I would agree. There is no doubt that Mohammed "borrowed" quite a bit from Jewish and Christian sources (although it is equally clear that his understanding of those concepts, not to mention the history outside of theology altogether, were flawed).

This is the line taken by St. John of Damascus, one of the earliest Christian theologians to confront Islam. In his polemics on Islam he makes no contentions that he considers it a vile heresy; however, he refers to Mohammed speaking of 'God,' just as he would refer to Jews or non-Trinitarians as speaking about God:

The gnostics might similarly refer to "God"; the problem is that their god is a different entity altogether (in the case of the gnostics, not even the creator-being). St. John was far too kind.

It is as if there were a man- A.- to whom we both refered. I know A. quite well and describe him accurately; you describe him with some correct details, some incorrect, but we are still refering to the same person, even though your perception of him is flawed. You are still in error. The true relativist would say that it doesn't matter what anyone says about A. because either A. doesn't really exist or all our words about A. are merely relative, hinged upon our separate, subjective experiences of A.

The problem comes down to when the claims made by the second individual are NOT incorrect. Allah really does have his throne in Mecca. Allah really is the proper name of the entity being worshipped by the followers of Islam. The issue isn't just that we have a different name for "God", it is that it is a different entity altogether. It is as if we were describing a person called "the President". I happen to say that his name is "Bush" and someone else claims his name is "Clinton". But other than that, he's the same guy because he's the commander in chief, lived in the White House, and had a daughter.

Certainly, there are extremely important differences in the way a Christian or Muslim or Jew speaks about God, but I still contend that when we are talking about God we have a concept that shares much common ground.

That is certainly true, but I don't think it is relevant. Just because we share concepts of what "the President" is doesn't mean that George Bush and Bill Clinton are the same person.

This does not somehow negate the absolute value of Christianity's truth claims

I think it does. If Allah really is the same entity as the Jews and Christians worship, then all it means is that none of the three are really worshipping the real God (note that I do not believe the postulate to be true, but the conclusion would be true if it were).

Also, I would argue that Islam developed within the milieu of Christianity and Judaism. Mohammed would have a good deal of exposure to Jewish communties established in the Arabian Penninsula, as well as some Arab tribes that had converted to Christianity. Certainly, there are strong pre-Islamic Arabic pagan influences as well, but the ideas of Mohammed and the content of the Koran are self-consciously within the monotheist tradition.

The influence of Judeo-Christian thought on Islam is self-evident and I wouldn't think of trying to refute the obvious. But just because Mohammed steals a few names from Jewish history (getting a lot of the details horribly wrong in what is supposedly a book "dictated" to him by Allah via Gabriel) doesn't legitimize his attempt at elevating a previously local deity of a pantheon (after murdering off the other minor deities of that pantheon) to the same stature (and identity!) as the creator God of the Jews.

I understand the sensitivity of this subject, particularly in a day and age in which many wish to reduce all differences of religion to preference and differences in experience, culture, etc: basically to say that everyone is right (which is to say none of it matters because it's all hocus pocus anyway).

I think the problem is that the softer "everyone is right" position influences even those that know better. But if we are going to be intellectually honest (and we must be if what we're really trying to find is "truth") then we have to subject our religious beliefs to the same hard, cold intellectual analysis that we would apply to any other subject. Religion does not get a special exemption from logic; and faith must mean believing something we don't otherwise know to be true, not beliving something that cannot be true.

The problem with Islam isn't just that it was conceived simply as a heresy by Mohammed. If he had merely invented the name "Allah" and claimed it was really the name of the Jewish God then the issue might be somewhat different (we'd be talking about heresy instead). But he didn't. He asserted that Allah, the same Allah who was being worshipped as one deity in a pantheon of over 300 other deities at the Kaaba, a pantheon that was completely unrelated both historically and philosophically to Judeo-Christian belief, was the god that Abraham (Ibrahim) worshipped in remote history. Allah has always been Allah since Allah was created, and if Allah is God then Judaism and Christianity are lies. Jesus can't be the only begotten Son of one who does not beget. As for the Jews, they're over there worshipping someone named "Jehovah" who has a history and personality completely different than Allah, and all the patriarchs since Isaac are in Hell because they didn't go back to the Kaaba temple that Ibrahim built to worship in front of a black rock.